Trial reportScientific reports2025
Randomized clinical trial on the effects of early cognitive interventions for children with acquired brain injury.
Trial report in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Pediatric acquired brain injuries (ABIs) may cause significant cognitive deficits. Early rehabilitation is recommended, but there is no solid evidence on the best intervention formats. This randomized clinical trial investigated the efficacy of two multidomain cognitive interventions for children aged 5:0-17:11. A personalized intervention was compared with an intervention providing a fixed-dose cognitive stimulation. 40 children were randomized into the 2 study arms and received 12-week rehabilitation (3 45-minute daily sessions for 5 days per week). 34 children completed the intervention and were assessed at baseline (T0) and post-intervention (T1). Visual sustained attention and other cognitive measures of attention, memory, visual-spatial/visual-constructional abilities and executive functions were primary and secondary outcomes, respectively. Primary and 14 of the 16 secondary outcomes showed an improvement at T1 with a medium-to-very-large effect, but training effects could not be disentangled from spontaneous recovery. No differences were found between interventions, likely because of the prolonged multidomain stimulation provided by both of them, which might have been helpful in improving the widespread cognitive deficits of children in both groups. Therefore, while for the chronic phase the guidelines recommend a personalized approach, in the early phase of recovery a standardized intervention may also be effective.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.