Table 1 A summary of the studies done to assess remote cognitive remediation

Schlosser et al. (2018) [32]

RCT, double blind

PRIME (n = 22), Waitlist (n = 22)

PRIME

Trust task [71,72,73] from baseline to post-trial

Retention rate = 74%

Donohoe et al. (2018) [28]

RCT, single blind

CR group (n = 48), Control (n = 42)

Web-based CR training

Episodic memory, WMS-III [74], SWM from the Cambridge Neurophysiological Test Automated Battery [75]

23 dropouts, 10 lost to follow-up in CR group, 7 drop outs, 13 lost to follow-up in control

Fisher et al. (2015) [69]

RCT, double blind

Auditory training (n = 63), computer games (n = 58)

Auditory training, computer games

MATRICS [76], symptoms and functioning

19 withdrawals, AT group; 14 withdrawals, CG group

Biagianti et al. (2017) [27]

RCT, double blind, reanalysis of data

Desktop computers (n = 33), iPads (n = 41)

CRT

MATRICS

Attrition rate = 36%

Medalia et al. (2021) [23]

Mixed methods

Hybrid condition (n = 28), all-clinic condition (n = 27)

Hybrid CR, CRT in clinic

Qualitative assessment

38 completed subjects (clinic n = 18, hybrid n = 20)

Loewy et al. (2021) [70]

Intent to treat analysis

Auditory training (n = 80), Computer games (n = 65)

Auditory training, Computer games

MATRICS, Global Cognition

6-month follow-up completed: AT n = 40, CG n = 37

Palumbo et al. (2019) [35]

Pilot study

n = 8

CIRCuiTS

MCCB [76, 77]

No dropouts