Cochrane · systematic review · CD002842
Cognitive rehabilitation for attention deficits following stroke
Loetscher, T, Potter, KJ, Wong, D, et al. · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2019 · Cochrane Library
StrokeAMSTAR 2: not assessed
SoF tableOnly the outcomes this review put in its Summary of Findings table are listed (the Cochrane Handbook caps them at about seven per comparison). Its other analyses are not shown here.
Questions
18
current version
GRADE rated
16
No studies
2
Included studies
NR
No studies 2 · 11.1%Ungraded 0 · 0%Very low 10 · 55.6%Low 5 · 27.8%Moderate 1 · 5.6%High 0 · 0%
Ungraded means an effect was reported without a GRADE rating; it is not a gap. No studies means the review found nothing to answer the question. The six categories are a display order, not a score.
Questions and results
Attention training compared to control for attention deficits following stroke immediately after treatment
Population: people with attention deficits following stroke
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Subjective measures – Attention training vs control | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 53 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Objective global measures Attention training vs control | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Alertness – Attention training vs control | no estimate extracted | 4 studies · 136 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Selective attention – Attention training vs control | no estimate extracted | 6 studies · 223 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Sustained attention – Attention training vs control | no estimate extracted | 4 studies · 169 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Divided attention – Attention training vs control | no estimate extracted | 4 studies · 165 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Functional abilities – Attention training vs control | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 75 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Mood (depression) – Attention training vs control | no estimate extracted | 3 studies · 109 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Quality of life – Attention training vs control | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 103 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Attention training compared to control for attention deficits following stroke at follow‐up
Population: people with attention deficits following stroke
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Subjective measures – Attention training vs control | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 99 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Objective global measures Attention training vs control | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Alertness – Attention training vs control | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 31 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Selective attention – Attention training vs control | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 99 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Sustained attention – Attention training vs control | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 66 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Divided attention – Attention training vs control | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 99 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Functional abilities – Attention training vs control | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 66 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Mood – Attention training vs control | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 99 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Quality of life – Attention training vs control | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 99 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |