title: Cognitive rehabilitation for executive dysfunction in adults with stroke or other adult non-progressive acquired brain damage.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Executive functions are the controlling mechanisms of the brain and include the processes of planning, initiation, organisation, inhibition, problem solving, self monitoring and error correction. They are essential for goal-oriented behaviour and responding to new and novel situations. A high number of people with acquired brain injury, including around 75% of stroke survivors, will experience executive dysfunction. Executive dysfunction reduces capacity to regain independence in activities of daily living (ADL), particularly when alternative movement strategies are necessary to compensate for limb weakness. Improving executive function may lead to increased independence with ADL. There are various cognitive rehabilitation strategies for training executive function used within clinical practice and it is necessary to determine the effectiveness of these interventions.
  
  
  OBJECTIVE
  To determine the effects of cognitive rehabilitation on executive dysfunction for adults with stroke or other non-progressive acquired brain injuries.
  
  
  METHODS
  We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (August 2012), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library, August 2012), MEDLINE (1950 to August 2012), EMBASE (1980 to August 2012), CINAHL (1982 to August 2012), PsycINFO (1806 to August 2012), AMED (1985 to August 2012) and 11 additional databases. We also searched reference lists and trials registers, handsearched journals and conference proceedings, and contacted experts.
  
  
  METHODS
  We included randomised trials in adults after non-progressive acquired brain injury, where the intervention was specifically targeted at improving cognition including separable executive function data (restorative interventions), where the intervention was aimed at training participants in methods to compensate for lost executive function (compensative interventions) or where the intervention involved the training in the use of an adaptive technique for improving independence with ADL (adaptive interventions). The primary outcome was global executive function and the secondary outcomes were specific components of executive function, working memory, ADL, extended ADL, quality of life and participation in vocational activities. We included studies in which the comparison intervention was no treatment, a placebo intervention (i.e. a rehabilitation intervention that should not impact on executive function), standard care or another cognitive rehabilitation intervention.
  
  
  METHODS
  Two review authors independently screened abstracts, extracted data and appraised trials. We undertook an assessment of methodological quality for allocation concealment, blinding of outcome assessors, method of dealing with missing data and other potential sources of bias.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Nineteen studies (907 participants) met the inclusion criteria for this review. We included 13 studies (770 participants) in meta-analyses (417 traumatic brain injury, 304 stroke, 49 other acquired brain injury) reducing to 660 participants once non-included intervention groups were removed from three and four group studies. We were unable to obtain data from the remaining six studies. Three studies (134 participants) compared cognitive rehabilitation with sensorimotor therapy. None reported our primary outcome; data from one study was available relating to secondary outcomes including concept formation and ADL. Six studies (333 participants) compared cognitive rehabilitation with no treatment or placebo. None reported our primary outcome; data from four studies demonstrated no statistically significant effect of cognitive rehabilitation on secondary outcomes. Ten studies (448 participants) compared two different cognitive rehabilitation approaches. Two studies (82 participants) reported the primary outcome; no statistically significant effect was found. Data from eight studies demonstrated no statistically significant effect on the secondary outcomes. We explored the effect of restorative interventions (10 studies, 468 participants) and compensative interventions (four studies, 128 participants) and found no statistically significant effect compared with other interventions.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  We identified insufficient high-quality evidence to reach any generalised conclusions about the effect of cognitive rehabilitation on executive function, or other secondary outcome measures. Further high-quality research comparing cognitive rehabilitation with no intervention, placebo or sensorimotor interventions is recommended.
authors: Department of Occupational Therapy, NHS Fife, Kirkcaldy, UK. chungsongyau@aol.com.
authors: Charlie S Y
authors: CS
authors: Chung
authors: Alex
authors: A
authors: Pollock
authors: Tanya
authors: T
authors: Campbell
authors: Brian R
authors: BR
authors: Durward
authors: Suzanne
authors: S
authors: Hagen
mesh_terms: D000203:Activities of Daily Living; D000328:Adult; D001925:Brain Damage, Chronic / Q000534:rehabilitation*; D003072:Cognition Disorders / Q000534:rehabilitation*; D056344:Executive Function; D006801:Humans; D016032:Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; D000071939:Stroke Rehabilitation
references: Am J Occup Ther. 1983 May;37(5):320-6
references: 6869493
references: Brain Inj. 2002 May;16(5):407-13
references: 12097224
references: Adv Clin Rehabil. 1987;1:6-18
references: 3503663
references: Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2000;(4):CD002842
references: 11034773
references: Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2005 Aug;86(8):1681-92
references: 16084827
references: Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2008 Dec;89(12):2239-49
references: 19061735
references: NeuroRehabilitation. 2006;21(3):245-53
references: 17167194
references: Brain Inj. 2004 May;18(5):461-70
references: 15195794
references: Neurol Neurochir Pol. 2006 Mar-Apr;40(2):112-8
references: 16628507
references: J Head Trauma Rehabil. 2011 Sep-Oct;26(5):325-38
references: 21169860
references: Neuropsychologia. 2006;44(8):1468-74
references: 16384587
references: Md State Med J. 1965 Feb;14:61-5
references: 14258950
references: Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2011 Apr;92(4):519-30
references: 21440699
references: J Head Trauma Rehabil. 1999 Dec;14(6):595-601
references: 10671705
references: Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2010 Feb;67(2):187-96
references: 20124118
references: Brain Inj. 1997 Mar;11(3):197-209
references: 9058001
references: JAMA. 1963 Sep 21;185:914-9
references: 14044222
references: Eur J Phys Rehabil Med. 2011 Mar;47(1):123-47
references: 21448124
references: Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord. 2004;17(1-2):49-53
references: 14560065
references: Age Ageing. 1990 Jan;19(1):19-24
references: 2316420
references: Int Disabil Stud. 1990 Jan-Mar;12(1):41-3
references: 2211467
references: Phys Ther. 2005 Oct;85(10):1020-33
references: 16180951
references: Med Sci Monit. 2012 Jul;18(7):CR432-42
references: 22739733
references: J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2001 Apr;70(4):477-82
references: 11254770
references: Brain Inj. 2007 Aug;21(9):913-23
references: 17729044
references: J Int Neuropsychol Soc. 2009 Jan;15(1):112-20
references: 19128534
references: Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007 Apr 18;(2):CD003586
references: 17443528
references: Physiotherapy. 1979 Feb;65(2):48-51
references: 441189
references: J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2002 Feb;72(2):193-202
references: 11796769
references: Brain Inj. 2007 Jan;21(1):21-9
references: 17364516
references: Acta Psychiatr Scand. 1983 Jun;67(6):361-70
references: 6880820
references: Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010 Sep 08;(9):CD006430
references: 20824849
references: NeuroRehabilitation. 2006;21(3):205-17
references: 17167189
references: Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2009 May;88(5):404-9
references: 19620953
references: JAMA. 2000 Jun 21;283(23):3075-81
references: 10865301
references: J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2004 Jan;75(1):43-8
references: 14707306
references: J Int Neuropsychol Soc. 2010 Jan;16(1):118-29
references: 19900348
references: Am J Occup Ther. 2009 Sep-Oct;63(5):525-34
references: 19785251
references: Front Hum Neurosci. 2011 Feb 17;5:9
references: 21369362
references: Neuropsychologia. 1995 May;33(5):623-42
references: 7637857
references: Stroke. 1988 May;19(5):604-7
references: 3363593
references: Brain Inj. 2010;24(6):823-32
references: 20377345
references: J Gen Psychol. 1948 Jul;39:15-22
references: 18889466
references: Brain Inj. 2010;24(10):1173-83
references: 20715888
references: J Clin Epidemiol. 1995 Mar;48(3):407-16
references: 7897461
references: Brain. 2011 May;134(Pt 5):1541-54
references: 21515904
references: Brain Inj. 2006 Jun;20(6):621-8
references: 16754287
references: Health Policy. 1990 Dec;16(3):199-208
references: 10109801
references: J Int Neuropsychol Soc. 2000 Mar;6(3):299-312
references: 10824502
references: Int Rehabil Med. 1985;7(4):176-81
references: 4093249
references: Am J Occup Ther. 2012 Jan-Feb;66(1):104-9
references: 22389945
references: Med Care. 1989 Nov;27(11):1076-83
references: 2586188