Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-846f6c7c4f-544bb Total loading time: 0.176 Render date: 2022-07-07T13:46:20.474Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "useNewApi": true } hasContentIssue true

Article contents

The Evidence Base of Neuropsychological Rehabilitation in Acquired Brain Impairment (ABI): How Good is the Research?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 February 2012

Michael Perdices*
Affiliation:
Department of Neurology, Royal North Shore Hospital, Sydney, Australia. MPerdices@nsccahs.health.nsw.gov.au
Regina Schultz
Affiliation:
Rehabilitation Studies Unit, Northern Clinical School, Faculty of Medicine, University of Sydney and Royal Rehabilitation Centre Sydney, Australia.
Robyn Tate
Affiliation:
Rehabilitation Studies Unit, Northern Clinical School, Faculty of Medicine, University of Sydney and Royal Rehabilitation Centre Sydney, Australia.
Skye McDonald
Affiliation:
School of Psychology, University of New South Wales, Australia.
Leanne Togher
Affiliation:
School of Communication Sciences and Disorders, University of Sydney, Australia.
Sharon Savage
Affiliation:
Rehabilitation Studies Unit, Northern Clinical School, Faculty of Medicine, University of Sydney and Royal Rehabilitation Centre Sydney, Australia.
Kiri Winders
Affiliation:
Rehabilitation Studies Unit, Northern Clinical School, Faculty of Medicine, University of Sydney and Royal Rehabilitation Centre Sydney, Australia.
Kate Smith
Affiliation:
Rehabilitation Studies Unit, Northern Clinical School, Faculty of Medicine, University of Sydney and Royal Rehabilitation Centre Sydney, Australia.
*
1Address for correspondence: Michael Perdices, PhD, Department of Neurology, Royal North Shore Hospital, St Leonards NSW 2065, Australia.

Abstract

In the context of evidence-based clinical practice (EBCP), the reliability of empirical data is largely determined by the methodological quality of research design. PsycBITE™ (Psychological Database of Brain Impairment Treatment Efficacy) is a web-based database listing all published, empirical reports on the effectiveness of nonpharmacological interventions for the psychological consequences of acquired brain impairment (ABI). The aim of this study was to survey the listings of PsycBITE™ and examine the methodological quality of the reports it contains. Reports listed in PsycBITE™ include systematic reviews (SRs), randomised controlled trials (RCTs), non-RCTs, case series (CSs) and single-subject designs (SSDs). They are indexed according to research design, neurological group, patient age group, target area and intervention type. The PEDro Scale is used to rate the methodological quality of RCTs, nonRCTs and CSs, with maximum obtainable methodological quality rating (MQR) of 10/10, 8/10 and 2/10 respectively. A search identified 1298 reports indexed in PsycBITE™. The largest proportion was SSDs (39%), followed by CSs (22%), RCTs (21%), non-RCTs (11%) and SRs (7%). The majority of reports was concerned with stroke (41%), traumatic brain injury (29%) and Alzheimer's and related dementias (22%). The most frequently investigated deficits were communication/language/speech disorders (24%); independent/self-care activities (19%); behaviour problems (17%); memory impairments (17%); anxiety, depression, stress, adjustment (15%). Approximately half of the RCTs, non-RCTs and CSs were rated for methodological quality. Mean MQR scores for RCTs, non-RCTs and CSs were 4.49, 2.85 and 1.15 respectively. While some PEDro criteria were met by a high proportion of RCTs and non-RCTs (≥ 70%), other criteria were only met by a small proportion of reports (as low as 1.6%). There was no significant difference in MQR scores between RCTs focusing on different neurological groups or target areas. Furthermore, there was no discernible improvement in MQR score for RCTs published over the last three decades. The methodological quality of studies investigating the efficacy of rehabilitation interventions in ABI has been consistently modest over several decades. This is largely attributable to poor adherence to fundamental tenets of research design, and requires urgent remediation. RCTs (and to a lesser extent, non-RCTs) are research methodologies which can potentially yield a high level of evidence, but only if they are adequately designed. PsycBITE™ has the facility to raise awareness of these issues and be instrumental in promoting EBCP in the field of ABI.

Type
Articles
Information
Brain Impairment , Volume 7 , Issue 2 , 01 September 2006 , pp. 119 - 132
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2006

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)
20
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

The Evidence Base of Neuropsychological Rehabilitation in Acquired Brain Impairment (ABI): How Good is the Research?
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

The Evidence Base of Neuropsychological Rehabilitation in Acquired Brain Impairment (ABI): How Good is the Research?
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

The Evidence Base of Neuropsychological Rehabilitation in Acquired Brain Impairment (ABI): How Good is the Research?
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *