Summary of findings for the main comparison. Cognitive rehabilitation compared to no treatment for occupational outcomes after traumatic brain injury.
| Cognitive rehabilitation compared to no treatment for occupational outcomes after traumatic brain injury | ||||||
| Patient or population: traumatic brain injury ‐ mild, moderate or severe Setting: outpatient centres in US and Australia Intervention: cognitive rehabilitation Comparison: no treatment | ||||||
| Outcomes | Anticipated absolute effects* (95% CI) | Relative effect (95% CI) | No of participants (studies) | Quality of the evidence (GRADE) | Comments | |
| Risk with no treatment | Risk with cognitive rehabilitation | |||||
|
Return to work Assessed by attainment of work within 14 weeks (medium‐term) of initiating intervention |
Study population | RR 1.80 (0.74 to 4.39) | 50 (1 RCT) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ Very low1,2 | ‐ | |
| 278 per 1000 | 500 per 1000 (206 to 1000) | |||||
|
Community integration
Assessed with Sydney Psychosocial Reintegration Scale (self‐reported) Scores range from 0 to 72, higher scores indicate better reintegration. Follow‐up: 1 month (short‐term) |
The mean community integration was 54.5 | MD 2.90 lower (12.57 lower to 6.77 higher) | ‐ | 12 (1 RCT) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ Low1,3 | ‐ |
|
Quality of life Assessed with Life‐3. Follow‐up: none |
The mean quality of life was 4.0 | MD 0.30 higher (0.18 lower to 0.78 higher) | ‐ | 98 (1 RCT) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ Low1,3 | ‐ |
| *The risk in the intervention group (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI). CI: confidence interval; MD: mean difference; RCT: randomized controlled trial; RR: risk ratio. | ||||||
| GRADE Working Group grades of evidence High quality: We are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect. Moderate quality: We are moderately confident in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different. Low quality: Our confidence in the effect estimate is limited: The true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect. Very low quality: We have very little confidence in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect. | ||||||
1 Downgraded by 1 level because the study was at high risk of bias.
2 Downgraded by 2 levels because of imprecision. Confidence interval overlapped with both 0.75 and 1.25.
3 Downgraded by 1 level because of imprecision. Total population was size fewer than 400.