Effectiveness of cognitive rehabilitation following epilepsy surgery: Current state of knowledge.

OBJECTIVE: Cognitive rehabilitation (CR) is a well-researched therapeutic option for a variety of neurocognitive problems. Recently, CR has been proposed as an option for patients who experience cognitive difficulties following epilepsy surgery (ES). However, there is inconsistency in reporting the efficacy of CR in this population. We appraise existing evidence regarding CR approaches in patients undergoing resective ES and review effectiveness of specific CR strategies. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search using MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and EBM Reviews (including the Cochrane database) identified studies in English published before September 2014, without age restriction, related to CR in patients who underwent resective ES. We included studies focused on patients who underwent ES and who received at least one type of cognitive rehabilitation. RESULTS: Of 2,059 citations identified, four fulfilled eligibility criteria (n = 577), and all investigated the effectiveness of specific CR strategies in patients with either left or right temporal lobe resections. CR strategies used included internal compensatory strategies, external memory aids, psychoeducation, verbal and visual memory training, and exercises of attention and executive functions. None were randomized trials, and only one study involved standardized methods or described the procedures in detail. Evidence suggests that CR may contribute to improvements in aspects of verbal memory, with particular benefit of visual imagery techniques; CR aimed at verbal memory functions may be less effective for patients with hemispheric-dominant resections, and figural memory may not be improved by CR. Furthermore, CR may improve functional and life outcomes, but its timing does not appear to influence its effectiveness. SIGNIFICANCE: We demonstrate that CR interventions are overwhelmingly under researched or underreported, and there is a need for a systematic evaluation of CR in this patient population. CR should be given greater attention after ES to determine its efficacy and role in the management of these patients.

Meta-analytic comparison of randomized and nonrandomized studies of breast cancer surgery.

BACKGROUND: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are thought to provide the most accurate estimation of "true" treatment effect. The relative quality of effect estimates derived from nonrandomized studies (nRCTs) remains unclear, particularly in surgery, where the obstacles to performing high-quality RCTs are compounded. We performed a meta-analysis of effect estimates of RCTs comparing surgical procedures for breast cancer relative to those of corresponding nRCTs. METHODS: English-language RCTs of breast cancer treatment in human patients published from 2003 to 2008 were identified in MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane databases. We identified nRCTs using the National Library of Medicine's "related articles" function and reference lists. Two reviewers conducted all steps of study selection. We included studies comparing 2 surgical arms for the treatment of breast cancer. Information on treatment efficacy estimates, expressed as relative risk (RR) for outcomes of interest in both the RCTs and nRCTs was extracted. RESULTS: We identified 12 RCTs representing 10 topic/outcome combinations with comparable nRCTs. On visual inspection, 4 of 10 outcomes showed substantial differences in summary RR. The pooled RR estimates for RCTs versus nRCTs differed more than 2-fold in 2 of 10 outcomes and failed to demonstrate consistency of statistical differences in 3 of 10 cases. A statistically significant difference, as assessed by the z score, was not detected for any of the outcomes. CONCLUSION: Randomized controlled trials comparing surgical procedures for breast cancer may demonstrate clinically relevant differences in effect estimates in 20%-40% of cases relative to those generated by nRCTs, depending on which metric is used.