{"title":"脑卒中后认知再训练对日常生活的影响:系统回顾和荟萃分析。","authors":"Jennifer White, Kylee J Lockwood","doi":"10.1177/02692155251336981","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>ObjectiveTo determine if the addition of cognitive retraining to rehabilitation following stroke results in better everyday living outcomes.Data sourcesElectronic databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, OT Seeker and Cochrane Library were searched until January 2025.Review methodsRandomised controlled trials were included if they measured change in function and investigated a cognitive retraining intervention aimed at restoration of impaired cognition in one or more specific cognitive domains in the adult stroke population. Papers were excluded if they exclusively provided interventions that were not restorative, such as compensatory approaches or direct task retraining. Two independent reviewers extracted data and assessed study quality.ResultsTwenty-one studies involving 1476 participants were included. There was very low-quality evidence that basic activity of daily living (ADL) was not improved by the addition of cognitive retraining (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.48, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.04 to 1.01). There was moderate quality evidence that cognitive retraining had no effect on Instrumental ADL (IADL) (SMD -0.19, 95% CI -0.65 to 0.27) or other measures of functional performance (SMD -0.03, 95% CI -0.31 to 0.24).ConclusionsCognitive retraining focusing on restoration of one or more cognitive domains after stroke did not show an impact in basic ADL performance, IADL performance, or other measures of functional performance. Results were complicated by low-quality evidence and methodological factors including variations in study populations, interventions provided and outcome measures. Further research that includes suitable measures of everyday living is needed to provide more robust evidence and guide clinical practice.</p>","PeriodicalId":10441,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Rehabilitation","volume":" ","pages":"2692155251336981"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The effect of cognitive retraining after stroke on everyday living: A systematic review and meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Jennifer White, Kylee J Lockwood\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/02692155251336981\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>ObjectiveTo determine if the addition of cognitive retraining to rehabilitation following stroke results in better everyday living outcomes.Data sourcesElectronic databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, OT Seeker and Cochrane Library were searched until January 2025.Review methodsRandomised controlled trials were included if they measured change in function and investigated a cognitive retraining intervention aimed at restoration of impaired cognition in one or more specific cognitive domains in the adult stroke population. Papers were excluded if they exclusively provided interventions that were not restorative, such as compensatory approaches or direct task retraining. Two independent reviewers extracted data and assessed study quality.ResultsTwenty-one studies involving 1476 participants were included. There was very low-quality evidence that basic activity of daily living (ADL) was not improved by the addition of cognitive retraining (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.48, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.04 to 1.01). There was moderate quality evidence that cognitive retraining had no effect on Instrumental ADL (IADL) (SMD -0.19, 95% CI -0.65 to 0.27) or other measures of functional performance (SMD -0.03, 95% CI -0.31 to 0.24).ConclusionsCognitive retraining focusing on restoration of one or more cognitive domains after stroke did not show an impact in basic ADL performance, IADL performance, or other measures of functional performance. Results were complicated by low-quality evidence and methodological factors including variations in study populations, interventions provided and outcome measures. Further research that includes suitable measures of everyday living is needed to provide more robust evidence and guide clinical practice.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10441,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical Rehabilitation\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"2692155251336981\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical Rehabilitation\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/02692155251336981\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"REHABILITATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Rehabilitation","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/02692155251336981","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"REHABILITATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
目的探讨脑卒中后认知再训练是否能改善患者的日常生活状况。检索截止到2025年1月的电子数据库MEDLINE、EMBASE、PsycINFO、CINAHL、OT Seeker和Cochrane Library。回顾方法随机对照试验包括测量功能变化和研究认知再训练干预,旨在恢复成年卒中人群在一个或多个特定认知领域的认知受损。如果论文只提供非恢复性的干预措施,如补偿性方法或直接任务再培训,则被排除在外。两名独立审稿人提取数据并评估研究质量。结果共纳入21项研究,受试者1476人。有非常低质量的证据表明,基本日常生活活动(ADL)并没有通过增加认知再训练而得到改善(标准化平均差(SMD) 0.48, 95%置信区间(CI) -0.04至1.01)。有中等质量的证据表明,认知再训练对工具性ADL (IADL) (SMD -0.19, 95% CI -0.65至0.27)或其他功能表现测量(SMD -0.03, 95% CI -0.31至0.24)没有影响。结论脑卒中后认知再训练的重点是恢复一个或多个认知域,对基本ADL表现、IADL表现或其他功能表现没有影响。由于低质量的证据和方法学因素,包括研究人群、提供的干预措施和结果测量的差异,结果变得复杂。需要进一步的研究,包括日常生活的适当措施,以提供更有力的证据和指导临床实践。
The effect of cognitive retraining after stroke on everyday living: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
ObjectiveTo determine if the addition of cognitive retraining to rehabilitation following stroke results in better everyday living outcomes.Data sourcesElectronic databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, OT Seeker and Cochrane Library were searched until January 2025.Review methodsRandomised controlled trials were included if they measured change in function and investigated a cognitive retraining intervention aimed at restoration of impaired cognition in one or more specific cognitive domains in the adult stroke population. Papers were excluded if they exclusively provided interventions that were not restorative, such as compensatory approaches or direct task retraining. Two independent reviewers extracted data and assessed study quality.ResultsTwenty-one studies involving 1476 participants were included. There was very low-quality evidence that basic activity of daily living (ADL) was not improved by the addition of cognitive retraining (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.48, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.04 to 1.01). There was moderate quality evidence that cognitive retraining had no effect on Instrumental ADL (IADL) (SMD -0.19, 95% CI -0.65 to 0.27) or other measures of functional performance (SMD -0.03, 95% CI -0.31 to 0.24).ConclusionsCognitive retraining focusing on restoration of one or more cognitive domains after stroke did not show an impact in basic ADL performance, IADL performance, or other measures of functional performance. Results were complicated by low-quality evidence and methodological factors including variations in study populations, interventions provided and outcome measures. Further research that includes suitable measures of everyday living is needed to provide more robust evidence and guide clinical practice.
期刊介绍:
Clinical Rehabilitation covering the whole field of disability and rehabilitation, this peer-reviewed journal publishes research and discussion articles and acts as a forum for the international dissemination and exchange of information amongst the large number of professionals involved in rehabilitation. This journal is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)