ReviewFrontiers in pediatrics2026
Computer-assisted cognitive training in children with developmental disorders: a scoping review of available tools, clinical targets, and evidence gaps.
Review in Frontiers in pediatrics, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Computerized cognitive training (CCT) is increasingly used in pediatric rehabilitation; however, its application across developmental disorders remains heterogeneous in terms of targets, delivery models, and outcomes. This scoping review aimed to map the currently available CCT tools used in children with developmental disorders and to summarize their main characteristics, clinical targets, and evidence gaps. Methods: We conducted a scoping review in accordance with the PRISMA-ScR framework and registered the protocol on the Open Science Framework (OSF; DOI 10.17605/OSF.IO/9XQ5H). We searched peer-reviewed studies investigating CCT in children with developmental disorders and extracted data on device characteristics, target domains, training modalities, study design, and main findings. Results: Twenty-two studies describing 21 devices were included. Evidence was heterogeneous across diagnoses, intervention architectures, comparators, and outcome measures. The most consistent signal emerged in ADHD, where some programs reported improvements in working memory and selected executive-function outcomes. Evidence in learning-related and intellectual developmental conditions was more variable and device-specific, while the only ASD study identified did not show superiority over mock training. Discussion: CCT appears clinically attractive because of its adaptability, gamified delivery, and potential for home-based use; however, the current evidence base is uneven and does not support broad efficacy claims across developmental disorders. More disorder-specific studies with stronger comparators and ecologically valid outcomes are needed. Systematic Review Registration: https://osf.io/9xq5h, doi: 10.17605/OSF.IO/9XQ5H.
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.