Cognitive rehabilitation for attention deficits following stroke.
Journal
The Cochrane database of systematic reviews
ISSN: 1469-493X
Titre abrégé: Cochrane Database Syst Rev
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100909747
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
10 11 2019
10 11 2019
Historique:
entrez:
10
11
2019
pubmed:
11
11
2019
medline:
17
4
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.
Sections du résumé
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.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31706263
doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD002842.pub3
pmc: PMC6953353
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Meta-Analysis
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Subventions
Organisme : Chief Scientist Office
ID : ETM/417
Pays : United Kingdom
Commentaires et corrections
Type : UpdateOf
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2019 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Références
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2003 Feb;84(2):268-76
pubmed: 12601660
J Neurol Sci. 2013 Feb 15;325(1-2):148-53
pubmed: 23312291
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013 Jul 01;(7):CD003586
pubmed: 23813503
J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2016 Dec 1;17(12):1114-1122
pubmed: 27592180
J Phys Ther Sci. 2013 Dec;25(12):1579-82
pubmed: 24409024
Neurology. 2010 Nov 2;75(18):1608-16
pubmed: 21041784
J Am Geriatr Soc. 2007 Jun;55(6):892-9
pubmed: 17537090
Neurol Neurochir Pol. 2006 Mar-Apr;40(2):112-8
pubmed: 16628507
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2003 Jul;84(7):950-63
pubmed: 12881816
Md State Med J. 1965 Feb;14:61-5
pubmed: 14258950
J Korean Acad Nurs. 2017 Feb;47(1):1-13
pubmed: 28262650
Medicine (Baltimore). 2018 Jun;97(22):e10910
pubmed: 29851819
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2011 Apr;92(4):519-30
pubmed: 21440699
Vopr Kurortol Fizioter Lech Fiz Kult. 1994 Mar-Apr;(2):2-4
pubmed: 8017036
Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2009 Nov;23(9):879-85
pubmed: 19541916
Stud Health Technol Inform. 2009;144:243-7
pubmed: 19592773
Int J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2012 Oct;27(10):1053-60
pubmed: 22249997
Brain Inj. 2004 Oct;18(10):985-95
pubmed: 15370898
J Cogn Neurosci. 2010 Dec;22(12):2716-27
pubmed: 19925203
J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis. 2018 Apr;27(4):1055-1060
pubmed: 29221967
Neuropsychology. 1997 Apr;11(2):290-5
pubmed: 9110335
Stroke. 2009 Oct;40(10):3293-8
pubmed: 19628801
Lancet Neurol. 2012 Mar;11(3):209
pubmed: 22341029
BMJ. 2008 Apr 26;336(7650):924-6
pubmed: 18436948
Disabil Rehabil. 2017 Jan;39(1):1-13
pubmed: 26750772
Br J Clin Psychol. 1982 Feb;21(1):1-16
pubmed: 7126941
Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2013 Feb;27(2):110-7
pubmed: 22895620
Neuropsychol Rehabil. 2009 Aug;19(4):517-40
pubmed: 18766984
J Phys Ther Sci. 2016 Jul;28(7):2154-8
pubmed: 27512287
Brain Inj. 2010 Feb;24(2):63-73
pubmed: 20085443
Disabil Rehabil. 1992 Jan-Mar;14(1):51-60
pubmed: 1586762
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2009 Dec;90(12):2096-102
pubmed: 19969174
Top Stroke Rehabil. 2010 Sep-Oct;17(5):328-36
pubmed: 21131257
Restor Neurol Neurosci. 2009;27(6):645-50
pubmed: 20042788
Cyberpsychol Behav. 2008 Jun;11(3):329-39
pubmed: 18537503
Stroke. 2013 Jul;44(7):e77-8
pubmed: 23798559
BMC Geriatr. 2011 Apr 21;11:19
pubmed: 21510896
J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2008 Jun;79(6):656-63
pubmed: 17872979
J Altern Complement Med. 2002 Dec;8(6):755-63
pubmed: 12614528
J Clin Exp Neuropsychol. 2000 Oct;22(5):656-76
pubmed: 11094401
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2000 Dec;81(12):1596-615
pubmed: 11128897
Int J Stroke. 2019 Jul;14(5):450-456
pubmed: 31092153
Neuropsychol Rehabil. 2016 Oct;26(5-6):847-65
pubmed: 27184585
Brain Inj. 2018;32(2):158-166
pubmed: 29206059
Funct Neurol. 2014 Oct-Dec;29(4):255-62
pubmed: 25764255
Disabil Rehabil. 2003 Aug 5;25(15):817-22
pubmed: 12851091
PLoS One. 2017 Mar 3;12(3):e0172993
pubmed: 28257436
Trials. 2018 Mar 22;19(1):191
pubmed: 29566766
Cortex. 2006 Oct;42(7):973-82
pubmed: 17172177
BMJ. 2014 Mar 07;348:g1687
pubmed: 24609605
Brain Inj. 2007 Jan;21(1):21-9
pubmed: 17364516
Acta Psychiatr Scand. 1983 Jun;67(6):361-70
pubmed: 6880820
J Rehabil Med. 2006 Jan;38(1):20-5
pubmed: 16548082
J Neurol Sci. 2006 Sep 25;247(2):149-56
pubmed: 16716359
Int J Rehabil Res. 1996 Sep;19(3):229-39
pubmed: 8910125
Clin Rehabil. 2001 Aug;15(4):437-44
pubmed: 11518445
Conscious Cogn. 2010 Jun;19(2):597-605
pubmed: 20363650
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2008 Nov;89(11):2041-7
pubmed: 18996231
Restor Neurol Neurosci. 2006;24(4-6):371-84
pubmed: 17119311
Clin Rehabil. 2000 Dec;14(6):574-83
pubmed: 11128731
Brain Inj. 2004 Dec;18(12):1219-27
pubmed: 15666566
Clin Rehabil. 2009 Feb;23(2):106-16
pubmed: 19164398
Neuropsychology. 2001 Apr;15(2):199-210
pubmed: 11324863
Trials. 2015 Dec 02;16:546
pubmed: 26631161
Disabil Health J. 2014 Jul;7(3):356-60
pubmed: 24947578
Disabil Rehabil. 2007 Mar 30;29(6):503-11
pubmed: 17364805
Soc Sci Med. 1998 Jun;46(12):1569-85
pubmed: 9672396
Int J Rehabil Res. 2016 Jun;39(2):153-9
pubmed: 26954991
J Head Trauma Rehabil. 2016 Nov/Dec;31(6):419-433
pubmed: 26709580
Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 1994 Feb;73(1):51-5
pubmed: 8305182
J Int Neuropsychol Soc. 2010 Jan;16(1):118-29
pubmed: 19900348
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2003 Oct;84(10):1499-504
pubmed: 14586918
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2000;(4):CD002842
pubmed: 11034773
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013 May 31;(5):CD002842
pubmed: 23728639
Med Care. 1992 Jun;30(6):473-83
pubmed: 1593914
Neuropsychol Rev. 2006 Jun;16(2):53-64
pubmed: 16967344
Neuropsychology. 2016 Feb;30(2):190-212
pubmed: 26237626
Front Hum Neurosci. 2011 Feb 17;5:9
pubmed: 21369362
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2009 Oct;90(10):1672-9
pubmed: 19801055
Neurology. 2015 Apr 14;84(15):1568-74
pubmed: 25788557
NeuroRehabilitation. 2015;36(3):367-77
pubmed: 26409340
Percept Mot Skills. 1991 Apr;72(2):527-30
pubmed: 1852561
J Phys Ther Sci. 2015 Aug;27(8):2577-9
pubmed: 26356152
BMJ Open. 2019 Feb 27;9(2):e024429
pubmed: 30819706
Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2015 Aug;29(7):668-76
pubmed: 25505221
Clin Rehabil. 2014 Apr;28(4):378-87
pubmed: 24113727
Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2007 Sep-Oct;21(5):435-43
pubmed: 17405883
Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord. 2004;18(2):138-44
pubmed: 15211068
Clin Rehabil. 2019 Jan;33(1):54-63
pubmed: 30064268
Brain Inj. 2002 Mar;16(3):185-95
pubmed: 11874612
Brain. 2011 May;134(Pt 5):1541-54
pubmed: 21515904
BMC Neurol. 2014 May 08;14:102
pubmed: 24885585
J Int Neuropsychol Soc. 2015 Sep;21(8):639-49
pubmed: 26346836
J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2016 Nov 2;13(1):96
pubmed: 27806718
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2005 Aug;86(8):1681-92
pubmed: 16084827
Eur J Neurol. 2005 Sep;12(9):665-80
pubmed: 16128867
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2019 Aug;100(8):1515-1533
pubmed: 30926291
Brain. 2008 Mar;131(Pt 3):866-76
pubmed: 18287122
J Neurol. 1996 Aug;243(8):599-604
pubmed: 8865027
Clin Neurophysiol. 2003 Feb;114(2):329-35
pubmed: 12559241
Int J Neurosci. 2018 Sep;128(9):791-796
pubmed: 29148855
Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2017 Apr;31(4):323-333
pubmed: 27913796
Brain Inj. 2009 Jul;23(7):686-92
pubmed: 19557572
Neuropsychol Rev. 2018 Sep;28(3):285-309
pubmed: 30006801
Neuropsychologia. 2006;44(7):1230-46
pubmed: 16280140
J Clin Exp Neuropsychol. 1998 Aug;20(4):503-17
pubmed: 9892054
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2003 Apr;84(4):541-50
pubmed: 12690593