Cognitive rehabilitation interventions after stroke: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-73071/v2

Download PDF

Protocol

Cognitive rehabilitation interventions after stroke: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-73071/v2

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

Journal Publication

published 04 Mar, 2021

Read the published version in Systematic Reviews →

You are reading this latest preprint version

Background: Stroke is the second leading cause of death worldwide, and 53.4% of stroke survivors suffer from post-stroke cognitive impairment. Post-stroke cognitive impairment can increase hospitalization rate and cost of care, and decrease the quality of life of stroke patients. To date, multiple cognitive rehabilitation interventions have been tested in stroke populations with post-stroke cognitive impairment. However, the most efficacious intervention has not been established. This systematic review aims to compare the efficacy of cognitive rehabilitation interventions for patients with post-stroke cognitive impairment.

Methods: We will search MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, PsycINFO, CINAHL, PubMed, and clinical trial registries to identify eligible randomized clinical trials with no restrictions in the date of publication and language. Studies conducted with patients aged 18 or over, with the presence of cognitive impairment after being diagnosed with stroke will be included. Studies will be restricted to randomized controlled trials comparing a cognitive rehabilitation intervention with another intervention. The primary outcome is any clinical changes in the general or specific cognitive domain (e.g. executive function, attention, memory, or perception). The secondary outcomes that will be collected include adverse effects (e.g. stroke, disability, or mortality) and quality of life. Two independent reviewers will assess articles to identify trials eligible for inclusion. Data extraction and risk of bias assessment of the included studies will also be done independently. Any discrepancies will be solved by discussion, or a third reviewer will be consulted if necessary. A meta-analysis will be carried out if appropriate.

Discussion: This systematic review for patients with post-stroke cognitive impairment will assess the efficacy of cognitive rehabilitation interventions. And our results will help clinical decision-making and support the development of clinical practice guidelines.

Systematic review registration: PROSPERO CRD42020173988

Health Economics & Outcomes Research

Health Policy

Stroke

cognitive impairment

cognitive rehabilitation

Description of the condition

Stroke is the second leading cause of death and the third leading cause of disability worldwide[1], and stroke survivors commonly develop post-stroke cognitive impairment (PSCI). Cognition is composed of multiple domains, including attention, memory, executive function, visuospatial ability, verbal information, language, and other aspects. Patients with PSCI may have damage to one or more cognitive domains, and the current thinking is that stroke tends to impact more deleteriously on attention and executive function compared with its impact on memory[2]. A recent study showed that averaged performance of stroke survivors in three specific cognitive domains: action speed, executive functions, and language, might be the optimal criterion for PSCI[3]. A recent systematic review and meta-analysis has identified that the prevalence of PSCI is 53.4%, measured within 1.5 years post-stroke[4]. However, PSCI also has persistent pervasiveness. The prevalence measured at 5 years and 14 years is 22% and 21%, respectively[5]. Two partially conflicting hypotheses were proposed to reveal the mechanism linking stroke to PSCI[6]. The first hypothesis highlights that stroke itself is a central factor in the development of cognitive impairment, and therefore performing optimal acute stroke care and preventing stroke recurrence might be the most effective therapy for PSCI. A study found that severity, subtype, and location of the stroke, the volume of infarct as well as recurrent stroke were all significantly associated with PSCI, which might support this hypothesis[7]. The other hypothesis emphasizes that PSCI might take place because stroke aggravates multiple clinically-silent vascular risk factors, such as hypertensive vasculopathy or cerebral amyloid angiopathy. PSCI can increase the institutionalization rate[8], and costs of care[9], while decreasing the quality of life[10]. Currently, cognitive impairment is determined using multiple neurophysiological yardsticks such as the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA); there are also neurophysiological tests to examine the impairment on a single cognitive domain, like executive function and memory[11].

Description of the intervention

On the basis of assessing and understanding the patients’ cognitive impairment, cognitive rehabilitation is a systematic therapeutic activity-oriented functionally[12]. Cognitive rehabilitation includes interventions that might be compensatory, educational, or restorative [see Figure 1]. Compensatory interventions tend to adapt to the external environment and improve the ability of patients to use aids and tools to overcome the impairment. One such example is the electronic paging system. Educational interventions, such as the family member education program, aim to help the patients and their family numbers to improve the understanding of stroke and PSCI, including definition, management, measurement, and metal support. Restorative interventions aim to directly restore the impaired function of patients with PSCI, including domain-specific interventions and interventions for generalized cognitive impairment. Generalized cognitive rehabilitation interventions include pharmacological and nonpharmacological interventions.

No definitive pharmacotherapies have been proven for recovery from PSCI, but some agents have the potential to be used in treating PSCI. Anticholinergic agents, such as donepezil, are common drugs used to treat Alzheimer’s disease and now show significant efficacy in the treatment of PSCI. The recommendation from American Heart Association/American Stroke Association (AHA/ASA) has suggested that donepezil was effective for enhancing cognition in patients suffering from vascular cognitive impairment[13]. What’s more, a recent meta-analysis found that anticholinergic agents can stably improve cognitive function without increasing the risk of side effects in patients with PSCI[14]. An epidemiological study has demonstrated that hypertension in middle age can increase the likelihood of cognitive impairment when getting older[15]. What’s more, studies found that high blood pressure has an association with PSCI. A clinical trial with 3.9 years of follow-up found that antihypertensive agents (perindopril and indapamide) can reduce risks of cognitive decline, possibly by preventing recurrent stroke[16]. Further studies show that calcium channel blockers, renin-angiotensin system blockers, and other specific antihypertensive drugs may show particular benefit in the prevention of cognitive decline[17]. Another promising drug might be escitalopram, which is an antidepressant drug. A study has shown that escitalopram may improve global cognitive function, especially in verbal and visual memory functions, and the effect might be independent of the antidepressant effect[18]. Fluoxetine, another antidepressant drug, has been shown to enhance motor recovery in the FLAME trial[19]. In the FOCUS trial, fluoxetine demonstrated no benefit in improving functional outcomes after acute stroke, although reducing the occurrence of post-stroke depression[20]. Further studies are needed to confirm the effect of antihypertensive and antidepressant drugs on cognitive rehabilitation of PSCI.

Several nonpharmacological treatments have shown positive results on the rehabilitation of PSCI. Aerobic exercises are activities with highly automated movements, and adequate aerobic exercises can benefit the cardiovascular, respiratory function of the body. A systematic review that included trials assessing the influence of aerobic exercise on PSCI shows that the duration of aerobic exercises can improve global cognitive ability, as well as specific domains of cognition such as attention, and memory[21]. Aerobic exercises in these trials include bicycle cycling, tai chi, yoga, and treadmill exercise. Swatridge et al also found that moderate-intensity aerobic exercise can have acute effects on cognitive control[22]. In this study, researchers found that people with chronic stroke can process information more quickly and control attention better, finishing 20 minutes of aerobic exercise. And electroencephalography showed improved cortical processing performance during a cognitive task after the aerobic exercises.

Computer-assisted cognitive rehabilitation (CACR) is another highlighted cognitive rehabilitation intervention. Compared with the conventional cognitive rehabilitation method, which is paper/pencil exercise, CACR has many advantages: 1) it has the flexibility to adjust the cognitive training on the basis of each patient’s specific neuropsychological patterns so that the damaged location can be better stimulated[23]; 2) it can give instant feedback and shorten treatment time[24]; 3) by incorporating video games, stroke patients might have more motivation for therapy. The clinical use of CACR has increased, and amounts of studies show its efficacy in improving attention, memory, executive function, visuospatial neglect, and other cognitive declines[25-27]. However, some studies found very limited effects of CACR on working memory and no effects on cognitive function compared to the control group[28]. A randomized controlled trial in 2019 also found no effects of CACR on facilitating the achievement of functional memory goals[29]. Further replicates of these findings are needed to confirm whether CACR shows efficacy in cognitive rehabilitation.

Noninvasive brain stimulation (NIBS), including transcranial current stimulation and transcranial magnetic stimulation, can modulate the excitability of specific brain regions and their participated networks noninvasively, influencing sensorimotor and cognitive abilities. Currently, NIBS is a promising diagnostic and therapeutic measure. NIBS has been well documented in improving language function after stroke[30-32]. 10 Hz repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) has been shown to improve PSCI[33]. What’s more, a recent overview of systematic reviews about rTMS in stroke patients shows evidence for cognitive rehabilitation in hemineglect[34]. Although the use of NIBS for cognitive rehabilitation in other cognitive domains remains largely uncertain, results from healthy systems suggest that NIBS is a promising modality to enhance other cognitive functional recoveries (e.g. memory) in stroke patients[35].

How the intervention might work

Restorative cognitive rehabilitation interventions aim to improve the impaired brain functions in patients with PSCI. And interventions might show efficacy in cognitive rehabilitation via targeting lesions on neuroanatomical structures after stroke. One example is anticholinergic drugs. Using whole-hemisphere sections, Selden et al. discovered two highly organized and discrete bundles of cholinergic fibers, which extend from the nucleus basalis to the cerebral cortex and amygdala[36]. Localized strokes might interrupt these bundles and reduce acetylcholine activity, and the aim of anticholinergic agents is to partially improve the impaired Ach activity. Another example might be NIBS. Cognitive functions are attributable to dynamic interactions of brain areas instead of operations of single brain areas[37]. NIBS could transcranially modulate the excitability of brain regions and their participated networks, of which the function could be damaged by stroke. Studies have found that the dorsal lateral prefrontal cortex, cerebellum, and posterior parietal cortex are the potential targets for NIBS[35].

Improving cerebral perfusion might be another target for cognitive rehabilitation. The prevalence of cerebral microbleeds (CMBs) is about 34% in ischemic stroke patients and 60% in hemorrhagic stroke patients[38]. And the presence of CMBs independently associates with mild cognitive impairment in patients[39]. Study showed that hypertension is a risk factor for CMBs[40]. Besides, hypertension could disrupt cerebral autoregulation, reduce cerebral perfusion, and limit the ability of the brain to clear harmful proteins[41], and therefore may impair cognition. Antihypertensive therapy might benefit the cognitive decline by correcting these factors. Physical exercises, including aerobic exercise, has been shown to increase perfusion and plasticity, and affect synaptic structure and strength through inducing central and peripheral growth factors[42]. Therefore, aerobic exercises might benefit cognition rehabilitation by combining their effects on neuroanatomical structures and vascular function.

Why it is important to do this review?

Cognitive impairment is found in approximately half of the stroke survivors and brings a heavy burden to both the patients’ family and the public health system. Although amounts of cognitive rehabilitation interventions have been investigated, there is no consensus in the decision of the best rehabilitative intervention for PSCI, and the intervention type, optimal treatment intensity as well as timing to ensure effectiveness need further exploration. To our knowledge, another systematic review compared the efficacy of cognitive rehabilitation interventions in treating PSCI, but it only included literature from 2009 through 2014[43]. and several important clinical trials have been published since then[44-47]. As a result, an up-to-date review is needed. The conclusions of our study may substantially help to address uncertainty in practice and inform clinical decision-making.

OBJECTIVES

The study will aim to compare the efficacy of cognitive rehabilitation interventions for patients with PSCI.

This protocol is being reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocol 2015 (PRISMA-P) checklist [see Additional file 1][48]. This protocol has been registered on the PROSPERO database(CRD42020173988).

Criteria for considering studies for this review

Types of studies

We will include all randomized controlled trials that compare different cognitive rehabilitation interventions in treating people with cognitive impairment after stroke. Studies published from inception in any language will be included.

Types of participants

For study patients, we will include adults (aged over 18) of either sex and any ethnicity, with the presence of cognitive impairment after being diagnosed with stroke. In this review, we will accept the diagnosis of cognitive impairment made by any validated neuropsychological tests, such as MMSE, MoCA, or other domain-specific cognitive tests. We will also accept the diagnosis of cognitive impairment made by experienced researchers.

Types of interventions

We will consider any pharmacological or nonpharmacological interventions delivered alone.

Pharmacological interventions may include:

Anticholinergic therapy, e.g. donepezil.
Antihypertensive, e.g. indapamide.
Antiplatelet, e.g. dipyridamole.
Antidepressants, e.g. escitalopram.

Nonpharmacological interventions may include:

Conventional cognitive training
Computer-assisted cognitive training
Aerobic exercises
Music therapy
Virtual reality
Noninvasive brain stimulation
Acupuncture
Educational therapy, e.g. intensive caregiver education program.

Comparison will be done among the interventions mentioned above.

Types of outcome measures

Primary outcomes

Any clinical changes in the general or specific cognitive domain (e.g. executive function, attention, memory or perception), measured by any validated measures, including but not limited to screening instruments such as MMSE and MoCA, and validated measure of domain-specific cognitive function such as Trail Making Test A and B, as well as Stroop Test.

Secondary outcomes

Adverse effects, e.g. stroke, disability, or mortality, as defined by the original researchers.
Quality of life, measured by any validated measure.

Search strategy

Electronic searches

The following electronic databases for relevant studies will be searched, with no restrictions in publication date or language:

Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Cochrane Methodology Register in the Cochrane Library (latest issue)
EMBASE (from 1974 to present)
MEDLINE (from 1946 to present)
PsycINFO (from 1887 to present)
CINAHL (from 1974 to present)
PubMed (from 1966 to present)

Also, we will also search US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov/) for ongoing trials register. An experienced librarian has developed the detailed draft search strategy for the MEDLINE database [see Additional file 2] and then adapted it for searching studies in other databases. The search strategy has been revised by another experienced librarian.

Searching other resources

We will also search the reference lists of included trials, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses identified during the screening process to identify other eligible trials. Grey literature, such as conference proceedings will also be searched.

Data collection and analysis

Selection of studies

We will store citations using the EndNote software (https://www.endnote.com/) with duplicates removed. The screening and selection will be completed in two levels. In level one, two review authors (JL and XW) will independently screen the titles and abstracts of every record from the list of results of our literature searching activity to identify all potentially relevant trials. In level two, the full text of all potentially relevant records from level one screening will be retrieved, and the same two reviewers will independently examine these and the reasons for excluding the ineligible trials will be recorded. We will calculate inter-rater reliability from a pilot study before each screening level using a predesigned test form [see Additional file 3][49], and then launch the formal screening if the high agreement (≥80%) between two reviewers can be achieved. If discrepancies are found on study selection, the two review authors will further discuss, and a third review author (TW) will be consulted if necessary. The study selection process will be shown in a PRISMA flow diagram [see Figure 2][50].

Data extraction and management

All study data will be recorded using a data extraction form created in Excel. Two review authors (JL and XW) will independently extract data from all included studies. The following detailed trial characteristics will be extracted: study characteristics (e.g. date of publication, study design, settings, country), characteristics of the patient: (e.g. number enrolled in each group, age, gender, types of stroke, duration after stroke), interventions (e.g. types of interventions, comparison), outcome results (e.g. clinical changes in cognition, adverse effects and specific measure of the quality of life). Similar to study selection, inter-rater reliability will also be calculated for conformation of high agreement (≥80%). Any disagreements on data extraction will be resolved through discussion, or by recourse to a third review author (TW).

Assessment of risk of bias in included studies

The risk of bias for each included study will be assessed independently by two review authors (JL and XW), conforming to the criteria outlined in Chapter 8 of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions[51]. Any discrepancies on assessment will be resolved by further discussion or by involving a third review author (TW). The risk of bias in the following domains will be assessed:

Random sequence generation.
Allocation concealment.
Blinding of participants and investigators.
Blinding of outcome assessment.
Incomplete outcome data.
Selective outcome report.
Other bias.

We will grade the risk of bias of studies as low, high, or uncertain in each of these domains. Information from the study report will be provided with a justification for our judgment in the ‘Risk of bias’ tables.

Assessment of heterogeneity

We will measure heterogeneity among the trials in each analysis using the I² statistic, and the heterogeneity will be considered as low (I²= 0% to 40%), moderate (I²= 40% to 70%) and substantial (I²= 70% to 100%). If heterogeneity is found, we will explore the potential sources via subgroup analyses.

Dealing with missing data

If we encounter missing data, the authors of the original trials and studies will be contacted to request access to further study data. When this is impossible, we will conduct an imputation approach using informative missing odds ratio (IMOR) for dichotomous data and informative missingness difference of means (IMDoM) for continuous data[52, 53]. And we will then conduct a sensitivity analysis to ensure no bias of the final results is created.

Assessment of reporting biases

Published and unpublished studies will be searched comprehensively to minimize reporting biases. If we identify 10 or more studies, possible reporting biases (e.g. publication bias, time-lag bias, citation bias, and outcome bias) will be evaluated for all studies using a funnel plot. If less than 10 studies are included, reporting bias will be assessed qualitatively on the basis of characteristics of the included studies, instead of performing the funnel plots.

Data synthesis and analysis

If there are sufficient trials with clinically similar populations and outcome measures, a meta-analysis of primary and secondary outcomes will be carried out using Review Manager 5[54]. We will use the Mantel-Haenszel method to pool the treatment effect of dichotomous data as risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals(CI). We will express continuous data as mean difference (MD) with 95% CI using an inverse variance method. We will report the result narratively if only one study contributes data for an outcome. We will combine the data in a meta-analysis when data for an outcome can be contributed by two or more trials. A fixed-effects model will be used to assess the results for heterogeneity. But if substantial heterogeneity is found, a random-effects model will be used instead.

We can only assess the statistical significance of the efficacy of a specific intervention using conventional meta-analysis. However, conventional meta-analysis cannot assess the amount of evidence that we used to estimate the intervention effect. To fill this vacancy, we will conduct trial sequential analysis to assess whether sufficient studies are identified to draw a firm conclusion on the efficacy of a specific intervention in cognitive rehabilitation after stroke.

‘Summary of findings’ table

The following outcomes will be included in a summary of findings table [see Additional file 4]: clinical changes in general cognitive function, clinical changes in domain-specific cognitive function (e.g. executive function, attention, memory or perception), adverse effects (e.g. stroke, disability or mortality) and QoL.

We will assess the certainty of the body of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system. The following five GRADE considerations: risk of bias, consistency of effect, imprecision, indirectness, and risk of publication bias will be considered. We will conform to methods described in Chapter 14 of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions[51]. A narrative ‘summary of findings’ table format will be created to present results if meta-analysis is not feasible.

Subgroup analysis

The following trial characteristics were prespecified as of interest to explore reasons behind heterogeneity: ischemic stroke versus hemorrhagic stroke and pharmacological interventions versus nonpharmacological interventions. We will use the ‘test for subgroup differences’ in Review Manager 5[54] to evaluate differences between subgroups.

Sensitivity analysis

If the heterogeneity is substantial, we will exclude studies with high risk of bias and undertake a sensitivity analysis of the primary outcomes.

This review might be the most comprehensive and updated review about cognitive rehabilitation interventions for patients with PSCI until now. We will provide an overview of the cognitive rehabilitation interventions, summarizing the current evidence and providing valuable information for trial design in the future. This review will compare the efficacy of different interventions, and hopefully yield information about detailed information of the interventions, such as intervention delivery and intensity. This will help clinical practitioners in decision-making when choosing optimal interventions for patients with PSCI, and support the development of clinical practice guidelines in the future.

However, our study has some limitations. The quality of trials is likely to be mixed, possibly with the majority of trials being small studies with a high risk of bias. Since we try to include any interventions designed to improve cognition in patients after stroke, the heterogeneity might be moderate or substantial, posing problems for evidence synthesis.

AHA/ASA: American Heart Association/American Stroke Association; CACR: computer-assisted cognitive rehabilitation; CENTRAL: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials; CI: confidence intervals; CINAHL: Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature; CMBs: cerebral microbleeds; EMBASE: Excerpta medica database; GRADE: Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation; IMDoM: informative missingness difference of means; IMOR: informative missing odds ratio; MD: mean differences; MMSE: Mini-Mental State Examination; MoCA: Montreal Cognitive Assessment; NIBS: noninvasive brain stimulation; PRISMA: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis; PSCI: post-stroke cognitive impairment; RR: risk ratios; rTMS: repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation;

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Availability of data and materials

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Funding

This work was supported by the National Key Research and Development Project (2016YFC1301703), the Beijing Scientific and Technologic Project (D161100003816002) and the National Natural Science Foundation of China (81601454).

Authors' contributions

LJ, YM and YX developed the initial idea for this study. XW, XZ, XB and KY designed the literature search strategy. JL and NJ finished the study design. QZ wrote the first draft of the review protocol. TW, AAD, BY critically reviewed the methodology and manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript. QZ is the guarantor of the review. QZ, XW, and TW contributed equally to this article.

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Authors' information

¹Department of Neurology, Xuanwu Hospital, Capital Medical University, No. 45 Changchun Street, Beijing, China. ²Department of Clinical Medicine, Peking Union Medical College, No. 5 Dongdan Three Street, Beijing, China. ³Medical Library, Xuanwu Hospital, Capital Medical University, No. 45 Changchun Street, Beijing, China. ⁴Department of Neurosurgery, Xuanwu Hospital, Capital Medical University, No. 45 Changchun Street, Beijing, China. ⁵China International Neuroscience Institute (China-INI), No. 45 Changchun Street, Beijing, China. ⁶Department of Radiology, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, 75 Francis St, Boston, MA, USA. ⁷Department of Evidence-Based Medicine, Xuanwu Hospital, Capital Medical University, No. 45 Changchun Street, Beijing, China. ⁸Department of Interventional Neuroradiology, Xuanwu Hospital, Capital Medical University, No. 45 Changchun Street, Beijing, China

Feigin VL, Norrving B, Mensah GA: Global Burden of Stroke. Circ Res 2017, 120(3):439-48. doi: 10.1161/circresaha.116.308413 [published Online First: 2017/02/06]
Cumming TB, Marshall RS, Lazar RM: Stroke, cognitive deficits, and rehabilitation: still an incomplete picture. Int J Stroke 2013, 8(1):38-45. doi: 10.1111/j.1747-4949.2012.00972.x [published Online First: 2013/01/03]
Barbay M, Taillia H, Nédélec-Ciceri C, Bompaire F, Bonnin C, Varvat J, Grangette F, Diouf M, Wiener E, Mas JL et al: Prevalence of Poststroke Neurocognitive Disorders Using National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke-Canadian Stroke Network, VASCOG Criteria (Vascular Behavioral and Cognitive Disorders), and Optimized Criteria of Cognitive Deficit. Stroke 2018, 49(5):1141-7. doi: 10.1161/strokeaha.117.018889 [published Online First: 2018/04/13]
Barbay M, Diouf M, Roussel M, Godefroy O: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Prevalence in Post-Stroke Neurocognitive Disorders in Hospital-Based Studies. Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord 2018, 46(5-6):322-34. doi: 10.1159/000492920 [published Online First: 2018/12/07]
Douiri A, Rudd AG, Wolfe CD: Prevalence of poststroke cognitive impairment: South London Stroke Register 1995-2010. Stroke 2013, 44(1):138-45. doi: 10.1161/strokeaha.112.670844 [published Online First: 2012/11/15]
Hennerici MG: What are the mechanisms for post-stroke dementia? Lancet Neurol 2009, 8(11):973-5. doi: 10.1016/s1474-4422(09)70261-3 [published Online First: 2009/09/29]
Pendlebury ST, Rothwell PM: Prevalence, incidence, and factors associated with pre-stroke and post-stroke dementia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Neurol 2009, 8(11):1006-18. doi: 10.1016/s1474-4422(09)70236-4 [published Online First: 2009/09/29]
Pasquini M, Leys D, Rousseaux M, Pasquier F, Hénon H: Influence of cognitive impairment on the institutionalisation rate 3 years after a stroke. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2007, 78(1):56-9. doi: 10.1136/jnnp.2006.102533 [published Online First: 2006/09/06]
Claesson L, Lindén T, Skoog I, Blomstrand C: Cognitive impairment after stroke - impact on activities of daily living and costs of care for elderly people. The Göteborg 70+ Stroke Study. Cerebrovasc Dis 2005, 19(2):102-9. doi: 10.1159/000082787 [published Online First: 2004/12/21]
Park JH, Kim BJ, Bae HJ, Lee J, Lee J, Han MK, O KY, Park SH, Kang Y, Yu KH et al: Impact of post-stroke cognitive impairment with no dementia on health-related quality of life. J Stroke 2013, 15(1):49-56. doi: 10.5853/jos.2013.15.1.49 [published Online First: 2013/12/11]
Sun JH, Tan L, Yu JT: Post-stroke cognitive impairment: epidemiology, mechanisms and management. Ann Transl Med 2014, 2(8):80. doi: 10.3978/j.issn.2305-5839.2014.08.05 [published Online First: 2014/10/22]
Cicerone KD, Dahlberg C, Kalmar K, Langenbahn DM, Malec JF, Bergquist TF, Felicetti T, Giacino JT, Harley JP, Harrington DE et al: Evidence-based cognitive rehabilitation: recommendations for clinical practice. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2000, 81(12):1596-615. doi: 10.1053/apmr.2000.19240 [published Online First: 2000/12/29]
Gorelick PB, Scuteri A, Black SE, Decarli C, Greenberg SM, Iadecola C, Launer LJ, Laurent S, Lopez OL, Nyenhuis D et al: Vascular contributions to cognitive impairment and dementia: a statement for healthcare professionals from the american heart association/american stroke association. Stroke 2011, 42(9):2672-713. doi: 10.1161/STR.0b013e3182299496 [published Online First: 2011/07/23]
Kim JO, Lee SJ, Pyo JS: Effect of acetylcholinesterase inhibitors on post-stroke cognitive impairment and vascular dementia: A meta-analysis. PLoS One 2020, 15(2):e0227820. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0227820 [published Online First: 2020/02/08]
Kilander L, Nyman H, Boberg M, Lithell H: The association between low diastolic blood pressure in middle age and cognitive function in old age. A population-based study. Age Ageing 2000, 29(3):243-8. doi: 10.1093/ageing/29.3.243 [published Online First: 2000/06/16]
Tzourio C, Anderson C, Chapman N, Woodward M, Neal B, MacMahon S, Chalmers J: Effects of blood pressure lowering with perindopril and indapamide therapy on dementia and cognitive decline in patients with cerebrovascular disease. Arch Intern Med 2003, 163(9):1069-75. doi: 10.1001/archinte.163.9.1069 [published Online First: 2003/05/14]
Rouch L, Cestac P, Hanon O, Cool C, Helmer C, Bouhanick B, Chamontin B, Dartigues JF, Vellas B, Andrieu S: Antihypertensive drugs, prevention of cognitive decline and dementia: a systematic review of observational studies, randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses, with discussion of potential mechanisms. CNS Drugs 2015, 29(2):113-30. doi: 10.1007/s40263-015-0230-6 [published Online First: 2015/02/24]
Jorge RE, Acion L, Moser D, Adams HP, Jr., Robinson RG: Escitalopram and enhancement of cognitive recovery following stroke. Arch Gen Psychiatry 2010, 67(2):187-96. doi: 10.1001/archgenpsychiatry.2009.185 [published Online First: 2010/02/04]
Chollet F, Tardy J, Albucher JF, et al. Fluoxetine for motor recovery after acute ischaemic stroke (FLAME): a randomised placebo-controlled trial. Lancet Neurol 2011;10(2):123-30. doi: 10.1016/s1474-4422(10)70314-8 [published Online First: 2011/01/11]
Effects of fluoxetine on functional outcomes after acute stroke (FOCUS): a pragmatic, double-blind, randomised, controlled trial. Lancet 2019;393(10168):265-74. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(18)32823-x [published Online First: 2018/12/12]
Zheng G, Zhou W, Xia R, Tao J, Chen L: Aerobic Exercises for Cognition Rehabilitation following Stroke: A Systematic Review. J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis 2016, 25(11):2780-9. doi: 10.1016/j.jstrokecerebrovasdis.2016.07.035 [published Online First: 2016/08/25]
Swatridge K, Regan K, Staines WR, Roy E, Middleton LE: The Acute Effects of Aerobic Exercise on Cognitive Control among People with Chronic Stroke. J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis 2017, 26(12):2742-8. doi: 10.1016/j.jstrokecerebrovasdis.2017.06.050 [published Online First: 2017/08/05]
Talassi E, Guerreschi M, Feriani M, Fedi V, Bianchetti A, Trabucchi M: Effectiveness of a cognitive rehabilitation program in mild dementia (MD) and mild cognitive impairment (MCI): a case control study. Arch Gerontol Geriatr 2007, 44 Suppl 1:391-9. doi: 10.1016/j.archger.2007.01.055 [published Online First: 2007/02/24]
Lee YM, Jang C, Bak IH, Yoon JS: Effects of Computer-assisted Cognitive Rehabilitation Training on the Cognition and Static Balance of the Elderly. J Phys Ther Sci 2013, 25(11):1475-7. doi: 10.1589/jpts.25.1475 [published Online First: 2014/01/08]
Yoo C, Yong MH, Chung J, Yang Y: Effect of computerized cognitive rehabilitation program on cognitive function and activities of living in stroke patients. J Phys Ther Sci 2015, 27(8):2487-9. doi: 10.1589/jpts.27.2487 [published Online First: 2015/09/12]
Bogdanova Y, Yee MK, Ho VT, Cicerone KD: Computerized Cognitive Rehabilitation of Attention and Executive Function in Acquired Brain Injury: A Systematic Review. J Head Trauma Rehabil 2016, 31(6):419-33. doi: 10.1097/htr.0000000000000203 [published Online First: 2016/11/03]
Svaerke K, Niemeijer M, Mogensen J, Christensen H: The effects of computer-based cognitive rehabilitation in patients with visuospatial neglect following stroke: a systematic review. Top Stroke Rehabil 2019, 26(3):214-25. doi: 10.1080/10749357.2018.1556963 [published Online First: 2018/12/21]
Wentink MM, Berger MA, de Kloet AJ, Meesters J, Band GP, Wolterbeek R, Goossens PH, Vliet Vlieland TP: The effects of an 8-week computer-based brain training programme on cognitive functioning, QoL and self-efficacy after stroke. Neuropsychol Rehabil 2016, 26(5-6):847-65. doi: 10.1080/09602011.2016.1162175 [published Online First: 2016/05/18]
Withiel TD, Wong D, Ponsford JL, Cadilhac DA, New P, Mihaljcic T, Stolwyk RJ: Comparing memory group training and computerized cognitive training for improving memory function following stroke: A phase II randomized controlled trial. J Rehabil Med 2019, 51(5):343-51. doi: 10.2340/16501977-2540 [published Online First: 2019/03/01]
Hamilton RH, Chrysikou EG, Coslett B: Mechanisms of aphasia recovery after stroke and the role of noninvasive brain stimulation. Brain Lang 2011, 118(1-2):40-50. doi: 10.1016/j.bandl.2011.02.005 [published Online First: 2011/04/05]
Otal B, Olma MC, Flöel A, Wellwood I: Inhibitory non-invasive brain stimulation to homologous language regions as an adjunct to speech and language therapy in post-stroke aphasia: a meta-analysis. Front Hum Neurosci 2015, 9:236. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2015.00236 [published Online First: 2015/05/15]
Norise C, Hamilton RH: Non-invasive Brain Stimulation in the Treatment of Post-stroke and Neurodegenerative Aphasia: Parallels, Differences, and Lessons Learned. Front Hum Neurosci 2016, 10:675. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2016.00675 [published Online First: 2017/02/09]
Guo F, Lou J, Han X, Deng Y, Huang X: Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Ameliorates Cognitive Impairment by Enhancing Neurogenesis and Suppressing Apoptosis in the Hippocampus in Rats with Ischemic Stroke. Front Physiol 2017, 8:559. doi: 10.3389/fphys.2017.00559 [published Online First: 2017/08/22]
Kim WJ, Rosselin C, Amatya B, Hafezi P, Khan F: Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation for management of post-stroke impairments: An overview of systematic reviews. J Rehabil Med 2020, 52(2). doi: 10.2340/16501977-2637 [published Online First: 2020/01/11]
Draaisma LR, Wessel MJ, Hummel FC: Non-invasive brain stimulation to enhance cognitive rehabilitation after stroke. Neurosci Lett 2020, 719:133678. doi: 10.1016/j.neulet.2018.06.047 [published Online First: 2018/07/01]
Selden NR, Gitelman DR, Salamon-Murayama N, Parrish TB, Mesulam MM: Trajectories of cholinergic pathways within the cerebral hemispheres of the human brain. Brain 1998, 121 ( Pt 12):2249-57. doi: 10.1093/brain/121.12.2249 [published Online First: 1999/01/05]
Bressler SL, Menon V: Large-scale brain networks in cognition: emerging methods and principles. Trends Cogn Sci 2010, 14(6):277-90. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2010.04.004 [published Online First: 2010/05/25]
Cordonnier C, Al-Shahi Salman R, Wardlaw J: Spontaneous brain microbleeds: systematic review, subgroup analyses and standards for study design and reporting. Brain 2007, 130(Pt 8):1988-2003. doi: 10.1093/brain/awl387 [published Online First: 2007/02/27]
Zhang J, Liu L, Sun H, Li M, Li Y, Zhao J, Li J, Liu X, Cong Y, Li F et al: Cerebral Microbleeds Are Associated With Mild Cognitive Impairment in Patients With Hypertension. J Am Heart Assoc 2018, 7(11). doi: 10.1161/jaha.117.008453 [published Online First: 2018/06/03]
Shams S, Martola J, Granberg T, Li X, Shams M, Fereshtehnejad SM, Cavallin L, Aspelin P, Kristoffersen-Wiberg M, Wahlund LO: Cerebral microbleeds: different prevalence, topography, and risk factors depending on dementia diagnosis—the Karolinska Imaging Dementia Study. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2015, 36(4):661-6. doi: 10.3174/ajnr.A4176 [published Online First: 2014/12/20]
Walker KA, Power MC, Gottesman RF: Defining the Relationship Between Hypertension, Cognitive Decline, and Dementia: a Review. Curr Hypertens Rep 2017, 19(3):24. doi: 10.1007/s11906-017-0724-3 [published Online First: 2017/03/17]
Cotman CW, Berchtold NC, Christie LA: Exercise builds brain health: key roles of growth factor cascades and inflammation. Trends Neurosci 2007, 30(9):464-72. doi: 10.1016/j.tins.2007.06.011 [published Online First: 2007/09/04]
Cicerone KD, Goldin Y, Ganci K, Rosenbaum A, Wethe JV, Langenbahn DM, Malec JF, Bergquist TF, Kingsley K, Nagele D et al: Evidence-Based Cognitive Rehabilitation: Systematic Review of the Literature From 2009 Through 2014. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2019, 100(8):1515-33. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2019.02.011 [published Online First: 2019/03/31]
Faria AL, Andrade A, Soares L, SB IB: Benefits of virtual reality based cognitive rehabilitation through simulated activities of daily living: a randomized controlled trial with stroke patients. J Neuroeng Rehabil 2016, 13(1):96. doi: 10.1186/s12984-016-0204-z [published Online First: 2016/11/04]
De Luca R, Leonardi S, Spadaro L, Russo M, Aragona B, Torrisi M, Maggio MG, Bramanti A, Naro A, De Cola MC et al: Improving Cognitive Function in Patients with Stroke: Can Computerized Training Be the Future? J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis 2018, 27(4):1055-60. doi: 10.1016/j.jstrokecerebrovasdis.2017.11.008 [published Online First: 2017/12/10]
Zhang L, Zhang T, Sun Y: A newly designed intensive caregiver education program reduces cognitive impairment, anxiety, and depression in patients with acute ischemic stroke. Braz J Med Biol Res 2019, 52(9):e8533. doi: 10.1590/1414-431x20198533 [published Online First: 2019/09/05]
Ihle-Hansen H, Langhammer B, Lydersen S, Gunnes M, Indredavik B, Askim T: A physical activity intervention to prevent cognitive decline after stroke: Secondary results from the Life After STroke study, an 18-month randomized controlled trial. J Rehabil Med 2019, 51(9):646-51. doi: 10.2340/16501977-2588 [published Online First: 2019/08/24]
Shamseer L, Moher D, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M, Shekelle P, Stewart LA: Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation. Bmj 2015, 350:g7647. doi: 10.1136/bmj.g7647 [published Online First: 2015/01/04]
Landis JR, Koch GG: The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977, 33(1):159-74. [published Online First: 1977/03/01]
Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gøtzsche PC, Ioannidis JP, Clarke M, Devereaux PJ, Kleijnen J, Moher D: The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. Bmj 2009, 339:b2700. doi: 10.1136/bmj.b2700 [published Online First: 2009/07/23]
Higgins JPT TJ, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, Welch VA (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.0 (updated July 2019). Cochrane 2019.
Mavridis D, White IR, Higgins JP, Cipriani A, Salanti G: Allowing for uncertainty due to missing continuous outcome data in pairwise and network meta-analysis. Stat Med 2015, 34(5):721-41. doi: 10.1002/sim.6365 [published Online First: 2014/11/14]
Spineli LM, Higgins JP, Cipriani A, Leucht S, Salanti G: Evaluating the impact of imputations for missing participant outcome data in a network meta-analysis. Clin Trials 2013, 10(3):378-88. doi: 10.1177/1740774512470317 [published Online First: 2013/01/17]
Cochrane Collaboration: Review Manager 5 (RevMan 5). Version 5.3. 2014.

Additionalfile1.doc
Additional file 1.doc PRISMA-P 2015 Checklist.
Additionalfile2.doc
Additional file 2.doc MEDLINE search strategy.
Additionalfile3.doc
Additional file 3.doc Screening pilot-test form.
Additionalfile4.doc
Additional file 4.doc Template for ‘Summary of findings’ table.

Download PDF

Journal Publication

published 04 Mar, 2021

Read the published version in Systematic Reviews →

Editorial decision: Accept
02 Feb, 2021
Reviewer #2 agreed at journal
31 Jan, 2021
Review #2 received at journal
31 Jan, 2021
Editor assigned by journal
28 Jan, 2021
Reviewers invited by journal
28 Jan, 2021
Reviewer #1 agreed at journal
28 Jan, 2021
Review #1 received at journal
28 Jan, 2021
Submission checks completed at journal
28 Jan, 2021
Editor invited by journal
28 Jan, 2021

You are reading this latest preprint version

Cognitive rehabilitation interventions after stroke: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Status:

Journal Publication

Version 2

Abstract

Figures

Background

Methods

Discussion

Abbreviations

Declarations

References

Supplementary Files

Status:

Journal Publication

Version 2