Tobias Loetscher1, Kristy-Jane Potter2, Dana Wong3, Roshan das Nair2. 1. University of South Australia, School of Psychology, GPO Box 2471, Adelaide, SA, Australia, 5001. 2. University of Nottingham, Division of Psychiatry & Applied Psychology, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, UK, NG7 2UH. 3. La Trobe University, School of Psychology and Public Health, Melbourne, Australia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Many survivors of stroke report attentional impairments, such as diminished concentration and distractibility. However, the effectiveness of cognitive rehabilitation for improving these impairments is uncertain.This is an update of the Cochrane Review first published in 2000 and previously updated in 2013. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether people receiving cognitive rehabilitation for attention problems 1. show better outcomes in their attentional functions than those given no treatment or treatment as usual, and 2. have a better functional recovery, in terms of independence in activities of daily living, mood, and quality of life, than those given no treatment or treatment as usual. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, PsycBITE, REHABDATA and ongoing trials registers up to February 2019. We screened reference lists and tracked citations using Scopus. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included controlled clinical trials (CCTs) and randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of cognitive rehabilitation for impairments of attention for people with stroke. We did not consider listening to music, meditation, yoga, or mindfulness to be a form of cognitive rehabilitation. We only considered trials that selected people with demonstrable or self-reported attentional deficits. The primary outcomes were measures of global attentional functions, and secondary outcomes were measures of attentional domains (i.e. alertness, selective attention, sustained attention, divided attention), functional abilities, mood, and quality of life. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected trials, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome. MAIN RESULTS: We included no new trials in this update. The results are unchanged from the previous review and are based on the data of six RCTs with 223 participants. All six RCTs compared cognitive rehabilitation with a usual care control. Meta-analyses demonstrated no convincing effect of cognitive rehabilitation on subjective measures of attention either immediately after treatment (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.53, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.03 to 1.08; P = 0.06; 2 studies, 53 participants; very low-quality evidence) or at follow-up (SMD 0.16, 95% CI -0.23 to 0.56; P = 0.41; 2 studies, 99 participants; very low-quality evidence). People receiving cognitive rehabilitation (when compared with control) showed that measures of divided attention recorded immediately after treatment may improve (SMD 0.67, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.98; P < 0.0001; 4 studies, 165 participants; low-quality evidence), but it is uncertain that these effects persisted (SMD 0.36, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.76; P = 0.08; 2 studies, 99 participants; very low-quality evidence). There was no evidence for immediate or persistent effects of cognitive rehabilitation on alertness, selective attention, and sustained attention. There was no convincing evidence for immediate or long-term effects of cognitive rehabilitation for attentional problems on functional abilities, mood, and quality of life after stroke. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The effectiveness of cognitive rehabilitation for attention deficits following stroke remains unconfirmed. The results suggest there may be an immediate effect after treatment on attentional abilities, but future studies need to assess what helps this effect persist and generalise to attentional skills in daily life. Trials also need to have higher methodological quality and better reporting.
BACKGROUND: Many survivors of stroke report attentional impairments, such as diminished concentration and distractibility. However, the effectiveness of cognitive rehabilitation for improving these impairments is uncertain.This is an update of the Cochrane Review first published in 2000 and previously updated in 2013. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether people receiving cognitive rehabilitation for attention problems 1. show better outcomes in their attentional functions than those given no treatment or treatment as usual, and 2. have a better functional recovery, in terms of independence in activities of daily living, mood, and quality of life, than those given no treatment or treatment as usual. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, PsycBITE, REHABDATA and ongoing trials registers up to February 2019. We screened reference lists and tracked citations using Scopus. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included controlled clinical trials (CCTs) and randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of cognitive rehabilitation for impairments of attention for people with stroke. We did not consider listening to music, meditation, yoga, or mindfulness to be a form of cognitive rehabilitation. We only considered trials that selected people with demonstrable or self-reported attentional deficits. The primary outcomes were measures of global attentional functions, and secondary outcomes were measures of attentional domains (i.e. alertness, selective attention, sustained attention, divided attention), functional abilities, mood, and quality of life. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected trials, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome. MAIN RESULTS: We included no new trials in this update. The results are unchanged from the previous review and are based on the data of six RCTs with 223 participants. All six RCTs compared cognitive rehabilitation with a usual care control. Meta-analyses demonstrated no convincing effect of cognitive rehabilitation on subjective measures of attention either immediately after treatment (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.53, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.03 to 1.08; P = 0.06; 2 studies, 53 participants; very low-quality evidence) or at follow-up (SMD 0.16, 95% CI -0.23 to 0.56; P = 0.41; 2 studies, 99 participants; very low-quality evidence). People receiving cognitive rehabilitation (when compared with control) showed that measures of divided attention recorded immediately after treatment may improve (SMD 0.67, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.98; P < 0.0001; 4 studies, 165 participants; low-quality evidence), but it is uncertain that these effects persisted (SMD 0.36, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.76; P = 0.08; 2 studies, 99 participants; very low-quality evidence). There was no evidence for immediate or persistent effects of cognitive rehabilitation on alertness, selective attention, and sustained attention. There was no convincing evidence for immediate or long-term effects of cognitive rehabilitation for attentional problems on functional abilities, mood, and quality of life after stroke. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The effectiveness of cognitive rehabilitation for attention deficits following stroke remains unconfirmed. The results suggest there may be an immediate effect after treatment on attentional abilities, but future studies need to assess what helps this effect persist and generalise to attentional skills in daily life. Trials also need to have higher methodological quality and better reporting.
Authors: Janusz Otfinowski; Bozena Jasiak-Tyrkalska; Anna Starowicz; Krzysztof Reguła Journal: Neurol Neurochir Pol Date: 2006 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 1.621
Authors: S V Prokopenko; E Y Mozheyko; M M Petrova; T D Koryagina; D S Kaskaeva; T V Chernykh; I N Shvetzova; A F Bezdenezhnih Journal: J Neurol Sci Date: 2013-01-10 Impact factor: 3.181
Authors: Gillian E Mead; Carolyn A Greig; Irene Cunningham; Susan J Lewis; Susie Dinan; David H Saunders; Claire Fitzsimons; Archie Young Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2007-06 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Terence J Quinn; Edo Richard; Yvonne Teuschl; Thomas Gattringer; Melanie Hafdi; John T O'Brien; Niamh Merriman; Celine Gillebert; Hanne Huyglier; Ana Verdelho; Reinhold Schmidt; Emma Ghaziani; Hysse Forchammer; Sarah T Pendlebury; Rose Bruffaerts; Milija Mijajlovic; Bogna A Drozdowska; Emily Ball; Hugh S Markus Journal: Eur Stroke J Date: 2021-10-08
Authors: Sophie D van der Linden; Geert-Jan M Rutten; Linda Dirven; Martin J B Taphoorn; Djaina D Satoer; Clemens M F Dirven; Margriet M Sitskoorn; Karin Gehring Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2021-09-06 Impact factor: 4.130