Can Research Findings be Used in Clinical Neuropsychology? Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials of Working Memory Intervention for Children.

Sacha Delphine Blause, François Léonard, Sylvie Willems, Ezio Tirelli
{"title":"Can Research Findings be Used in Clinical Neuropsychology? Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials of Working Memory Intervention for Children.","authors":"Sacha Delphine Blause, François Léonard, Sylvie Willems, Ezio Tirelli","doi":"10.1093/arclin/acaf048","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Working memory difficulties are prevalent in children with cognitive disorders, affecting their academic performance and quality of life. To offer optimal care, neuropsychologists rely on evidence-based practice principles, particularly drawing from relevant research data. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the gold standard for assessing intervention effectiveness, but for these studies to be reliable and clinically applicable, they must meet specific quality standards. This article aims to assess the quality of RCTs published on working memory interventions in children.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Two investigators independently evaluated the quality of a sample of 30 RCTs on the revalidation of working memory in children with the help of the CONSORT SPI grid (completeness of reporting) and the RoB 2 tool (risk of bias).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In our sample, only an average of 11.9 out of 45 CONSORT items were fully reported per article. Key elements like intervention descriptions, outcome definitions, and the blinding process were inadequately reported in over 80% of articles. According to the RoB 2 classification, 36 RCTs were deemed high risk for bias, 10 had some concerns, and 1 was rated as low risk.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The analyzed RCTs on cognitive rehabilitation in children reveal considerable transparency issues and high bias risks, limiting their clinical reliability. Researchers need to enhance the quality and clarity of their studies to better support clinical neuropsychologists.</p>","PeriodicalId":520564,"journal":{"name":"Archives of clinical neuropsychology : the official journal of the National Academy of Neuropsychologists","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Archives of clinical neuropsychology : the official journal of the National Academy of Neuropsychologists","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/arclin/acaf048","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: Working memory difficulties are prevalent in children with cognitive disorders, affecting their academic performance and quality of life. To offer optimal care, neuropsychologists rely on evidence-based practice principles, particularly drawing from relevant research data. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the gold standard for assessing intervention effectiveness, but for these studies to be reliable and clinically applicable, they must meet specific quality standards. This article aims to assess the quality of RCTs published on working memory interventions in children.

Methods: Two investigators independently evaluated the quality of a sample of 30 RCTs on the revalidation of working memory in children with the help of the CONSORT SPI grid (completeness of reporting) and the RoB 2 tool (risk of bias).

Results: In our sample, only an average of 11.9 out of 45 CONSORT items were fully reported per article. Key elements like intervention descriptions, outcome definitions, and the blinding process were inadequately reported in over 80% of articles. According to the RoB 2 classification, 36 RCTs were deemed high risk for bias, 10 had some concerns, and 1 was rated as low risk.

Conclusions: The analyzed RCTs on cognitive rehabilitation in children reveal considerable transparency issues and high bias risks, limiting their clinical reliability. Researchers need to enhance the quality and clarity of their studies to better support clinical neuropsychologists.

研究成果能否用于临床神经心理学?儿童工作记忆干预的随机对照试验分析。
目的:工作记忆困难在认知障碍儿童中普遍存在,影响其学习成绩和生活质量。为了提供最佳护理,神经心理学家依赖于基于证据的实践原则,特别是从相关研究数据中提取。随机对照试验(rct)是评估干预效果的金标准,但为了使这些研究可靠并具有临床应用价值,它们必须满足特定的质量标准。本文旨在评估已发表的关于儿童工作记忆干预的随机对照试验的质量。方法:两位研究者使用CONSORT SPI网格(报告的完整性)和RoB 2工具(偏倚风险)独立评估了30个rct样本的质量,这些rct样本对儿童工作记忆的再验证进行了评估。结果:在我们的样本中,平均每篇文章中45个CONSORT项目中只有11.9个被完全报道。超过80%的文章对干预措施描述、结果定义和盲法过程等关键因素的报道不充分。根据RoB 2分类,36项rct被认为存在高偏倚风险,10项存在一定的风险,1项为低风险。结论:所分析的儿童认知康复的随机对照试验存在相当大的透明度问题和高偏倚风险,限制了其临床可靠性。研究人员需要提高研究的质量和清晰度,以更好地支持临床神经心理学家。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信