When assessing comparative effectiveness, the meta-analysis did not distinguish between studies comparing active with sham treatment conditions, and those comparing 2 alternative, active cognitive interventions. The meta-analysis also excluded noncontrolled and single-case
studies that might elucidate innovative and potentially effective treatments. Among the systematic reviews discussed above,3, 4, 5 and 6 only 2 articles were not included in our prior reviews. FK506 purchase We therefore identified the need to review the literature since 2002 and update our previous practice recommendations accordingly. The current study is an updated review of the literature published from 2003 through 2008 addressing cognitive rehabilitation for people with TBI or stroke. We systematically reviewed and analyzed studies
that allowed us to evaluate the effectiveness of interventions for cognitive limitations. We integrated these findings in our current practice recommendations. The development of evidence-based recommendations followed our prior methodology for identification of the relevant literature, review and classification of studies, and development of recommendations. These methods are described in more detail in our initial publication.1 For the current review, online literature searches using PubMed and Infotrieve were conducted using the terms attention, awareness, cognitive, communication, executive, language, memory, perception, problem solving, and reasoning combined with each of the terms rehabilitation, remediation, and training for articles published between UK-371804 nmr 2003 and 2008. Articles were assigned to 1 of 6 possible categories (based on interventions for attention, vision and visuospatial functioning, language and communication skills, memory, executive function, or comprehensive-integrated interventions) that specifically address the rehabilitation of cognitive disability. Articles were reviewed 4-Aminobutyrate aminotransferase by 2 task force members who were experienced in the process of conducting a systematic review of cognitive rehabilitation studies, and classified as providing Level I, Level II,
or Level III evidence. The task force initially identified citations for 198 published articles. The abstracts or complete articles were reviewed in order to eliminate articles according to the following exclusion criteria: (1) nonintervention articles, including nonclinical experimental manipulation, (2) theoretical articles or descriptions of treatment approaches, (3) review articles, (4) articles without adequate specification of interventions, (5) articles that did not include participants primarily with a diagnosis of TBI or stroke, (6) studies of pediatric subjects, (7) single case reports without empirical data, (8) nonpeer reviewed articles and book chapters, (9) articles describing pharmacologic interventions, and (10) non-English language articles. One hundred forty-one articles were selected for inclusion following this screening process.