SynthesisOccupational therapy international2026
Predictors of Return to Driving in Patients With Acquired Brain Injury: A Systematic Review With Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Occupational therapy international, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Predictors of Return to Driving in Patients With Acquired Brain Injury: A Systematic Review With Meta-Analysis.Occupational therapy international · 2026Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesThis review aimed to comprehensively synthesise evidence on the therapeutic efficacy of driving rehabilitation for patients with acquired brain injury (ABI) and identify and analyse key predictors of successful return-to-driving.
methodsA comprehensive literature search was conducted using four databases: PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and ProQuest. Eleven studies (four randomised controlled trials and seven cross-sectional studies) were included in the final analysis. Reporting completeness and methodological quality were assessed using PRISMA checklists. A random-effects model was used to calculate the standardised mean differences (SMDs) and odds ratios (ORs). MAIN
findingsA qualitative analysis of cross-sectional studies identified cognitive processing speed, reaction time and functional independence as frequently reported predictors of returning to driving, with a pooled meta-analysis further highlighting lower initial injury severity (higher GCS scores) as a significant predictor of returning to driving. The meta-analysis revealed that simulator- and VR-based training significantly reduced driving errors (SMD = -1.19, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -1.75 to -0.64; p < 0.0001). The intervention significantly increased the likelihood of passing the on-road driving test by approximately 3.37 times (OR = 3.37, 95% CI: 1.36-8.35).
conclusionThe results of this review suggest that simulator-based interventions may positively impact driving performance and current cognitive and functional activities, as well as psychological self-efficacy, and facilitat a successful return to driving in patients with ABI. These findings provide a baseline for developing clinical guidelines for the safe resumption of driving.
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.