SynthesisJournal of medical Internet research2025
Digital Interventions for Cognitive Dysfunction in Patients With Stroke: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Journal of medical Internet research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effects of Digital Cognitive Rehabilitation on Functional Performance After Stroke: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of ADL and IADL Outcomes.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Mobile Application-Based Interventions to Improve Attention in Stroke Survivors: A Scoping Review.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2026Review
- Robotic rehabilitation with the LokomatFrontiers in aging neuroscience · 2026Article
- Comparative effectiveness of non-pharmacological interventions for knee osteoarthritis: protocol for a Bayesian Network meta-analysis.Systematic reviews · 2025Article
- Performance and Perceptions of Health Care Professionals Using an Immersive Virtual Reality Tool for Home Care Training: Observational Feasibility and Acceptability Study.JMIR serious games · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: In recent years, digital technologies have shown possibilities for improving cognitive function after stroke, but their effectiveness and treatment options vary, the optimal treatment remains unclear, and the current evidence is somewhat contradictory. Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of various digital interventions in improving poststroke cognitive function and provide evidence-based support for clinical decision-making. Methods: A systematic search was conducted across PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Scopus, Embase, and CNKI databases from their inception to January 2025, with no restrictions on language or publication year. Randomized controlled trials evaluating digital interventions (eg, virtual reality [VR], computer-assisted cognitive therapy [CACT], and robot-assisted therapy [RAT]) for poststroke cognitive impairment in adults (aged≥18 y) were included. Eligible studies reported outcomes measured by the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) or the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), with cognitive improvement quantified through pre- to postintervention scores. Multiple researchers independently extracted data. Network meta-analysis was performed using R software, incorporating consistency or inconsistency models (based on Deviance Information Criterion differences), random-effects models, and I² statistics to assess heterogeneity. Sources of heterogeneity were analyzed through sensitivity analyses, subgroup analyses, and meta-regression. Intervention efficacy was ranked using Surface Under the Cumulative Ranking Curve (SUCRA) values. Robustness and consistency were validated via Egger test, sensitivity analyses, and node-splitting methods. Evidence quality was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation framework. Results: A total of 2128 articles were retrieved, with 27 meeting the inclusion criteria. Compared to conventional rehabilitation or care (C), CACT demonstrated significant superiority in MoCA scores (mean difference [MD]=3.03, 95% CI 1.69 to 4.38; SUCRA=91.53%); while cognitive training (CCT) demonstrated no statistical difference (MD=0.70, 95% CI -0.88 to 2.28). The ordering is CACT>VR>RAT>CCT. For MMSE scores, RAT ranked highest in efficacy (MD=5.99, 95% CI 3.20 to 8.79; SUCRA=99.44%); whereas both VR (MD=1.34, 95% CI -0.94 to 3.62) and CCT (MD=1.12, 95% CI -1.46 to 3.69) showed no significant improvement. The ordering is RAT>CACT>CCT>VR. Conclusions: Digital therapies are effective in improving cognitive functioning in patients post stroke. CACT showed superior efficacy on the MoCA (emphasizing executive functioning), while RAT had the highest efficacy in the MMSE (focusing on basic cognition), suggesting different domain-specific effects. However, caution is warranted due to the heterogeneity of the included studies, risk of bias, and limited sample sizes in some studies. Future research should focus on optimizing intervention protocols, integrating neuromodulation or traditional rehabilitation techniques, and exploring cost-effective clinical implementation strategies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.