Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 364

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 46 of the 46 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Intervention for executive functions after traumatic brain injury: A systematic review, meta-analysis and clinical recommendations

Kennedy, Mary R. T., Coelho, Carl, Turkstra, Lyn, Ylvisaker, Mark, Moore Sohlberg, Mckay, Yorkston, Kathryn, Chiou, Hsin-Huei, Kan, Pui-Fong·2008·Neuropsychological Rehabilitation

Abstract

A systematic review of studies that focused on the executive functions of problem solving, planning, organising and multitasking by adults with traumatic brain injury (TBI) was performed through 2004. Qualitative and quantitative methods were used to evaluate the 15 studies that met inclusion criteria. Demographic variables, design and intervention features, and impairment and activity/participation outcomes (ICF) (World Health Organization, 2001 World Health Organization. 2001. ICF: International classification of functioning, disability, and health, Geneva, , Switzerland: WHO. [Google Scholar]) were documented. Five randomised control treatment (RCT) studies used step-by-step, metacognitive strategy instruction (MSI) and outcomes were evaluated in a meta-analysis. Effect sizes (ESs) from immediate impairment outcomes after MSI and “control” intervention were similar to each other, and both were significantly larger than chance. ESs from immediate activity/participation outcomes after MSI were significantly larger than the ESs from control intervention, and both were significantly larger than chance. These results, along with positive outcomes from the other group, single-subject design and single case studies, provided sufficient evidence to make the clinical recommendation that MSI should be used with young to middle-aged adults with TBI, when improvement in everyday, functional problems is the goal (Level A) (American Academy of Neurology, 2004 American Academy of Neurology. 2004. Clinical practice guideline process manual Edited by: Edlund, W., Gonseth, G., So, Y. and Franklin, G. Prepared for the Quality Standards Subcommittee and the Therapeutics and Technology Assessment Subcommittee, by. Retrieved June 18 2006 at www.aan.org [Google Scholar]). Although maintenance effects were generally positive, there was insufficient data quantitatively to evaluate this. Furthermore, there was insufficient evidence to make clinical recommendations for children or older adults. Intervention that trained verbal reasoning and multi-tasking was promising, although the evidence is insufficient to make clinical recommendations at this time. Additional research needs were highlighted.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/09602010701748644

Cites

46 of 46 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 46 references

Cited by

See all 364

Metadata

Authors
Kennedy, M. R. T., Coelho, C., Turkstra, L., Ylvisaker, M., Moore Sohlberg, M., Yorkston, K., Chiou, H.-H., & Kan, P.-F.
Venue
Neuropsychological Rehabilitation
Published
2008-06
Volume
18
Issue
3
Pages
257-299
ISSN
  • 0960-2011 (ISSN-L)
  • 1464-0694
OpenAlex
W2055595156
Cited by
364
References
46
FWCI
2.23
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Intervention for executive functions after traumatic brain injury: A systematic review, meta-analysis and clinical recommendations. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/09602010701748644
The paper
Kennedy, M. R. T., Coelho, C., Turkstra, L., Ylvisaker, M., Moore Sohlberg, M., Yorkston, K., Chiou, H.-H., & Kan, P.-F. (2008). Intervention for executive functions after traumatic brain injury: A systematic review, meta-analysis and clinical recommendations. Neuropsychological Rehabilitation. https://doi.org/10.1080/09602010701748644

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.