SynthesisScientific reports2026
A Systematic review and meta-analysis on prospective memory rehabilitation in adults with non-progressive acquired brain injury.
Synthesis in Scientific reports, 2026. 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Prospective memory (PM) is often impaired following acquired brain injury (ABI). However, its rehabilitation remains challenging for neuropsychologists. Following PRISMA guidelines, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the effectiveness, durability, and real-life impact of PM interventions in adults suffering from non-progressive ABI. Twenty-seven studies published between January 2008 and December 2024 met the inclusion criteria: fourteen randomized controlled trials (RCTs), seven non-randomized trials, four pre-post studies, and two case series. Ten RCTs were included in the meta-analysis. Interventions encompassed compensatory strategies and restitutive methods. PM outcomes were measured using validated tools (e.g., the Cambridge Prospective Memory Test and Rivermead Behavioural Memory Test). The pooled analysis showed a moderate, statistically significant effect of rehabilitation on PM performance. Some evidence of transfer were found but outcome measures are typically based on scales or questionnaires, which are subjective measures, rarely reported in detail, therefore unreliable in the case of patients with reduced awareness. Information about maintenance is scarce: a follow-up to a maximum of 12 months was conducted only in seven RCTs. Our results identified moderate heterogeneity across studies and multiple indicators pointed to the possible presence of publication bias. However, overall evidence quality was rated as moderate. Taken together, these findings support the clinical value of rehabilitation for PM deficits after ABI, while highlighting the need for more consistent methodologies and long-term outcome data.
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.