SynthesisJournal of psychiatry & neuroscience : JPN2026
Cognitive remediation in people with bipolar disorder and cognitive dysfunction: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Journal of psychiatry & neuroscience : JPN, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCognitive impairment is a frequent feature of bipolar disorder (BD), often persisting during euthymic phases and affecting multiple cognitive domains. These deficits impair functional recovery and quality of life. Pharmacological treatments have shown limited efficacy in ameliorating cognitive dysfunction in BD. Cognitive remediation (CR) has emerged as a promising nonpharmacological alternative. However, reviews of its efficacy in BD have reported inconsistent findings. One major limitation highlighted in past reviews is the heterogeneity of study samples, due to the inclusion of participants without cognitive impairment, potentially introducing a ceiling effect that may obscure treatment benefits. This review addresses this gap by examining only studies that selected participants through objective or structured subjective cognitive screening.
methodsA systematic search of PubMed and Web of Science (finalized 27 January 2026) identified interventional studies of CR in adults with BD requiring objective or subjective cognitive impairment for inclusion. Of 2662 records retrieved, 128 full texts were reviewed, and 6 studies met eligibility criteria; 2 secondary analyses derived from 2 of these studies were also retained for synthesis. Four studies were randomized controlled trials, one was non-randomized with a control group, and one was uncontrolled. Two reviewers independently screened studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Given methodological variability, results were synthesized narratively.
resultsSix studies met inclusion criteria. Findings were inconsistent: three reported significant cognitive improvements following CR or related interventions, whereas three randomized trials found no significant cognitive effects. Variability in screening methods, intervention formats, and outcome selection precluded meta-analysis. LIMITATIONS: Evidence is constrained by the small number of eligible studies, methodological heterogeneity, and variable risk of bias.
conclusionsCurrent evidence from enriched samples suggests that CR may improve specific cognitive domains in BD, but overall results remain inconclusive. Future trials should employ rigorous cognitive screening, harmonized outcome measures, and more individualized interventions to clarify efficacy.
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.