Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42384384›Full record

Trial reportJAMA network open2026

Cognitive Rehabilitation and Functional Outcomes in Long COVID-Related Cognitive Impairment: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Martina Vanova, Aysha Mohamed Rafik Patel, Iona Scott, Gina Gilpin, Emily N Manning, Charlotte Ash, Philippa Wittenberg, Jason Lim, Zoe Hoare, Rachel Evans and 9 more

Registry-linked trialAbstract readRandomized Controlled TrialMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Trial report in JAMA network open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05731570 (Cognitive Impairment in Long Covid), which is not on this map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT05731570 naunknown statusnot on this map

Cognitive Impairment in Long Covid: PhEnotyping and RehabilitatiOn (CICERO)

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity College, LondonRan2023 to 2024Enrolled78ConditionsLong Covid19ArmsCognitive rehabilitation
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

19 authors.

Martina VanovaDementia Research Centre, University College London Queen Square Institute of Neurology, Faculty of Brain Sciences, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
Aysha Mohamed Rafik PatelInstitute of Cognitive Neuroscience, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
Iona ScottInstitute of Cognitive Neuroscience, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
Gina GilpinInstitute of Cognitive Neuroscience, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
Emily N ManningInstitute of Cognitive Neuroscience, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
Charlotte AshInstitute of Cognitive Neuroscience, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
Philippa WittenbergInstitute of Cognitive Neuroscience, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
Jason LimSchool of Applied Sciences, University of Brighton, United Kingdom.
Zoe HoareNorth Wales Medical School, Bangor University, Bangor, United Kingdom.
Rachel EvansNorth Wales Medical School, Bangor University, Bangor, United Kingdom.
Nathan BraySchool of Health Sciences, Bangor University, Bangor, United Kingdom.
Christopher M KippsDepartment of Neurology, University Hospitals Southampton National Health Service Trust, Southampton, United Kingdom.
Ciara DevineDepartment of Neurology, University Hospitals Southampton National Health Service Trust, Southampton, United Kingdom.
Saliha AhmedGreater Manchester Dementia Research Centre, Greater Manchester Mental Health National Health Service Trust, Manchester, United Kingdom.
Ross DunneGreater Manchester Dementia Research Centre, Greater Manchester Mental Health National Health Service Trust, Manchester, United Kingdom.
Anna KoniotesDepartment of Neurology, University Hospitals Sussex National Health Service Trust, United Kingdom.
Catherine WarrenDepartment of Neurology, University Hospitals Sussex National Health Service Trust, United Kingdom.
Dennis ChanInstitute of Cognitive Neuroscience, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
Aida Suarez-GonzalezDementia Research Centre, University College London Queen Square Institute of Neurology, Faculty of Brain Sciences, University College London, London, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Cognitive impairment is common in long COVID and severely affects daily life, with no proven treatments to date. Objective: To evaluate the ability of cognitive rehabilitation (CR) to improve goal attainment, cognitive, and clinical outcomes in individuals with cognitive impairment as part of long COVID. Design, Setting, and Participants: This multicenter, single-blind, 2-arm, parallel-group randomized clinical trial was conducted at 3 sites in England between February 2023 and March 2024. Participants were adults aged 30 to 60 years with prior COVID-19 infection and objective cognitive impairment (≥1 SD below age norm in ≥2 cognitive domains). A sample size of 88 participants (44:44) was required to detect a conservative effect of 0.7 on the goal attainment score at 3 months. Interventions: Participants were randomized (1:1) to CR or treatment as usual (TAU). CR consisted of 10 individual 1-hour sessions conducted once per week with a trained researcher, applying evidence-based strategies to 3 individually selected, personally meaningful functional goals. TAU was variable, with most participants having access to specialist memory clinics. Main Outcome and Measures: The primary outcome consisted of participant-reported goal-attainment scores at 3 months after randomization measured by the Bangor Goal-Setting Interview. Analysis was conducted on an intention-to-treat basis using multilevel mixed-effects models with 2-sided 95% CIs and 5% significance. Results: A total of 78 participants (24 male [30.8%] and 54 female [69.2%]; mean [SD] age, 47.3 [7.2] years) were randomized, including 38 individuals in CR and 40 individuals in TAU groups. At 3 months after randomization, goal attainment was significantly greater in the CR compared with the TAU group (adjusted mean difference, 2.88 [95% CI, 2.03-3.73]; P < .001; Cohen d = 1.57), with CR providing a large and clinically meaningful treatment effect. This was sustained at 6 months, with a lower effect size (adjusted mean difference, 1.72 [95% CI, 0.86-2.57]; P < .001; Cohen d = 0.91). Conclusions and relevance: In this study, individualized, goal-oriented CR led to significant and sustained improvements in goal attainment in people with long COVID-related cognitive impairment. These findings may guide and inform the provision of CR treatments and services for people living with long COVID. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05731570.

Indexed as

Cognitive DysfunctionCOVID-19AdultCognitive EnhancementCognitive TrainingFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPost-Acute COVID-19 SyndromeSARS-CoV-2Single-Blind MethodTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID42384384
PMCPMC13324862

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.