Maria Cotelli1, Rosa Manenti1, Michela Brambilla1, Elena Gobbi1, Clarissa Ferrari2, Giuliano Binetti3,4, Stefano F Cappa5,6. 1. 1 Neuropsychology Unit, IRCCS Centro San Giovanni di Dio Fatebenefratelli, Italy. 2. 2 Statistics Service, IRCCS Istituto Centro San Giovanni di Dio Fatebenefratelli, Italy. 3. 3 MAC Memory Center, IRCCS Istituto Centro San Giovanni di Dio Fatebenefratelli, Italy. 4. 4 Molecular Markers Laboratory, IRCCS Istituto Centro San Giovanni di Dio Fatebenefratelli, Italy. 5. 5 IRCCS Istituto Centro San Giovanni di Dio Fatebenefratelli, Brescia, Italy. 6. 6 NEtS, Scuola Universitaria Superiore IUSS-Pavia, Italy.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Given the limited effectiveness of pharmacological treatments, non-pharmacological interventions in neurodegenerative diseases have gained increasing attention in recent years and telerehabilitation has been proposed as a cognitive rehabilitation strategy. The purpose of this systematic review is to examine the evidence for the efficacy of cognitive telerehabilitation interventions compared with face-to-face rehabilitation in patients with mild cognitive impairment, Alzheimer's disease and frontotemporal dementia. METHODS: In accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, a systematic search of the Medline database was conducted. Out of 14 articles assessed for eligibility, five studies were identified, three in participants with mild cognitive impairment or Alzheimer's disease, two in patients with primary progressive aphasia. RESULTS: The Physiotherapy Evidence Database scale was used to assess the methodological quality of four out of five studies included in this systematic review, with only one report receiving a high-quality rating. Effect-size analysis evidenced positive effects of telerehabilitation interventions, comparable with those reported for face-to-face rehabilitation. DISCUSSION: The available evidence for the effectiveness of cognitive telerehabilitation is limited, and the quality of the evidence needs to be improved. The systematic review provides preliminary evidence suggesting that cognitive telerehabilitation for neurodegenerative disease may have comparable effects as conventional in-person cognitive rehabilitation.
INTRODUCTION: Given the limited effectiveness of pharmacological treatments, non-pharmacological interventions in neurodegenerative diseases have gained increasing attention in recent years and telerehabilitation has been proposed as a cognitive rehabilitation strategy. The purpose of this systematic review is to examine the evidence for the efficacy of cognitive telerehabilitation interventions compared with face-to-face rehabilitation in patients with mild cognitive impairment, Alzheimer's disease and frontotemporal dementia. METHODS: In accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, a systematic search of the Medline database was conducted. Out of 14 articles assessed for eligibility, five studies were identified, three in participants with mild cognitive impairment or Alzheimer's disease, two in patients with primary progressive aphasia. RESULTS: The Physiotherapy Evidence Database scale was used to assess the methodological quality of four out of five studies included in this systematic review, with only one report receiving a high-quality rating. Effect-size analysis evidenced positive effects of telerehabilitation interventions, comparable with those reported for face-to-face rehabilitation. DISCUSSION: The available evidence for the effectiveness of cognitive telerehabilitation is limited, and the quality of the evidence needs to be improved. The systematic review provides preliminary evidence suggesting that cognitive telerehabilitation for neurodegenerative disease may have comparable effects as conventional in-person cognitive rehabilitation.
Authors: Heather R Dial; Holly A Hinshelwood; Stephanie M Grasso; H Isabel Hubbard; Maria-Luisa Gorno-Tempini; Maya L Henry Journal: Clin Interv Aging Date: 2019-02-25 Impact factor: 4.458
Authors: Megan E O'Connell; Shirin Vellani; Sheryl Robertson; Hannah M O'Rourke; Kathy S McGilton Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2021-01-27 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Cristina Alaimo; Elena Campana; Maria Rachele Stoppelli; Elena Gobbi; Francesca Baglio; Federica Rossetto; Giuliano Binetti; Orazio Zanetti; Rosa Manenti; Maria Cotelli Journal: Front Neurol Date: 2021-07-05 Impact factor: 4.003
Authors: Vincent C T Mok; Sarah Pendlebury; Adrian Wong; Suvarna Alladi; Lisa Au; Philip M Bath; Geert Jan Biessels; Christopher Chen; Charlotte Cordonnier; Martin Dichgans; Jacqueline Dominguez; Philip B Gorelick; SangYun Kim; Timothy Kwok; Steven M Greenberg; Jianping Jia; Rajesh Kalaria; Miia Kivipelto; Kandiah Naegandran; Linda C W Lam; Bonnie Yin Ka Lam; Allen T C Lee; Hugh S Markus; John O'Brien; Ming-Chyi Pai; Leonardo Pantoni; Perminder Sachdev; Ingmar Skoog; Eric E Smith; Velandai Srikanth; Guk-Hee Suh; Joanna Wardlaw; Ho Ko; Sandra E Black; Philip Scheltens Journal: Alzheimers Dement Date: 2020-08-12 Impact factor: 16.655