TY - JOUR
T1 - Rehabilitation of Cognitive Deficits Poststroke
T2 - Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials
AU - O'Donoghue, Mairead
AU - Leahy, Siobhan
AU - Boland, Pauline
AU - Galvin, Rose
AU - McManus, John
AU - Hayes, Sara
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2022 Lippincott Williams and Wilkins. All rights reserved.
PY - 2022/5/1
Y1 - 2022/5/1
N2 - Background: Despite the prevalence of cognitive impairment poststroke, there is uncertainty regarding interventions to improve cognitive function poststroke. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluate the effectiveness of rehabilitation interventions across multiple domains of cognitive function. Methods: Five databases were searched from inception to August 2019. Eligible studies included randomized controlled trials of rehabilitation interventions for people with stroke when compared with other active interventions or standard care where cognitive function was an outcome. Results: Sixty-four randomized controlled trials (n=4005 participants) were included. Multiple component interventions improved general cognitive functioning (MD, 1.56 [95% CI, 0.69-2.43]) and memory (standardized MD, 0.49 [95% CI, 0.27-0.72]) compared with standard care. Physical activity interventions improved neglect (MD, 13.99 [95% CI, 12.67-15.32]) and balance (MD, 2.97 [95% CI, 0.71-5.23]) compared with active controls. Noninvasive brain stimulation impacted neglect (MD, 20.79 [95% CI, 14.53-27.04) and functional status (MD, 14.02 [95% CI, 8.41-19.62]) compared with active controls. Neither cognitive rehabilitation (MD, 0.37 [95% CI, -0.94 to 1.69]) nor occupational-based interventions (MD, 0.45 [95% CI, -1.33 to 2.23]) had a significant effect on cognitive function compared with standard care. Conclusions: There is some evidence to support multiple component interventions, physical activity interventions, and noninvasive brain stimulation improving cognitive function poststroke. Findings must be interpreted with caution given the overall moderate to high risk of bias, heterogeneity of interventions, and outcome measures across studies.
AB - Background: Despite the prevalence of cognitive impairment poststroke, there is uncertainty regarding interventions to improve cognitive function poststroke. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluate the effectiveness of rehabilitation interventions across multiple domains of cognitive function. Methods: Five databases were searched from inception to August 2019. Eligible studies included randomized controlled trials of rehabilitation interventions for people with stroke when compared with other active interventions or standard care where cognitive function was an outcome. Results: Sixty-four randomized controlled trials (n=4005 participants) were included. Multiple component interventions improved general cognitive functioning (MD, 1.56 [95% CI, 0.69-2.43]) and memory (standardized MD, 0.49 [95% CI, 0.27-0.72]) compared with standard care. Physical activity interventions improved neglect (MD, 13.99 [95% CI, 12.67-15.32]) and balance (MD, 2.97 [95% CI, 0.71-5.23]) compared with active controls. Noninvasive brain stimulation impacted neglect (MD, 20.79 [95% CI, 14.53-27.04) and functional status (MD, 14.02 [95% CI, 8.41-19.62]) compared with active controls. Neither cognitive rehabilitation (MD, 0.37 [95% CI, -0.94 to 1.69]) nor occupational-based interventions (MD, 0.45 [95% CI, -1.33 to 2.23]) had a significant effect on cognitive function compared with standard care. Conclusions: There is some evidence to support multiple component interventions, physical activity interventions, and noninvasive brain stimulation improving cognitive function poststroke. Findings must be interpreted with caution given the overall moderate to high risk of bias, heterogeneity of interventions, and outcome measures across studies.
KW - activities of daily living
KW - brain
KW - cognition
KW - meta-analysis
KW - stroke
KW - systematic review
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85128737611&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1161/STROKEAHA.121.034218
DO - 10.1161/STROKEAHA.121.034218
M3 - Review article
C2 - 35109684
AN - SCOPUS:85128737611
SN - 0039-2499
VL - 53
SP - 1700
EP - 1710
JO - Stroke
JF - Stroke
IS - 5
ER -