SynthesisNeuropsychology review2026
Examining the Effectiveness of Neuropsychological Interventions on Cognition in Patients with Epilepsy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Neuropsychology review, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This meta-analysis evaluated the effectiveness of neuropsychological interventions in enhancing cognition in patients with epilepsy. The systematic review was conducted under PRISMA guidelines. Of 1363 articles, 25 met the inclusion criteria. Meta-analyses assessing pre-post changes in experimental interventions (i.e., without comparison to control groups) revealed moderate effects on cognition in adults (g = 0.29; 95% CI = 0.18, 0.40; p < 0.0001), with significant effects for attention (g = 0.24; 95% CI = 0.06, 0.43; p = 0.0098), immediate memory (g = 0.34; 95% CI = 0.21, 0.47; p < 0.0001), delayed memory (g = 0.38; 95% CI = 0.18, 0.57; p < 0.0001), and language (g = 0.33; 95% CI = 0.06, 0.59; p = 0.0159). In pediatric samples, moderate effects were found on overall cognition (g = 0.55; 95% CI = 0.22, 0.89; p = 0.0012), with gains in attention (g = 0.66; 95% CI = 0.15, 1.17; p = 0.01) and working memory (g = 0.80; 95% CI = -0.05, 1.65; p = 0.06). Comparisons with control groups (i.e., patients without intervention) showed a trend towards positive effects in adults (g = 0.35; 95% CI = -0.00, 0.71; p = 0.053), with brain training games associated with poorer outcomes (B = -1.03; SE = 0.52; 95% CI = -2.05, -0.00; p = 0.049). No significant differences were found in pediatric samples (g = 0.34; 95% CI = -0.22, 0.89; p = 0.24). The findings support the implementation of targeted cognitive interventions in clinical practice, offering evidence-based recommendations.
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.