Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22981268›Full record

ArticleRevue neurologique2012

Rehabilitation of damage to the visual brain.

S Ajina, C Kennard

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Revue neurologique, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Blindsight and Unconscious Vision: What They Teach Us about the Human Visual System.The Neuroscientist : a review journal bringing neurobiology, neurology and psychiatry · 2016
    Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

S AjinaFMRIB Centre, University of Oxford, John Radcliffe Hospital, Headley Way, Oxford OX3 9DU, UK. sara.ajina@ndcn.ox.ac.uk
C Kennard

Funding

Wellcome Trust 096001Wellcome Trust WT096001/Z/11/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Homonymous visual field loss is a common consequence of stroke and traumatic brain injury. It is associated with an adverse functional prognosis and has implications on day-to-day activities such as driving, reading, and safe navigation. Early recovery is expected in around half of cases, and may be associated with a return in V1 activity. In stable disease, recovery is unlikely beyond 3 and certainly 6 months. Rehabilitative approaches generally target three main areas, encompassing a range of techniques with variable success: visual aids aim to expand or relocate the affected visual field; eye movement training builds upon compensatory strategies to improve explorative saccades; visual field restitution aims to improve visual processing within the damaged field itself. All these approaches seem to offer modest improvements with repeated practice, with none clearly superior to the rest. However, a number of areas are demonstrating particular promise currently, including simple web-based training initiatives, and work on neuroimaging and learning. The research interest in this area is encouraging, and it is to be hoped that future trials can better untangle and control for the number of complicated confounds, so that we will be in a much better position to evaluate and select the most appropriate therapy for patients.

Indexed as

Stroke RehabilitationBrain InjuriesEye MovementsHumansNeuronal PlasticityOptical DevicesPhysical Therapy ModalitiesStrokeVision DisordersVisual CortexVisual Fields

Identifiers

PMID22981268
PMCPMC3990209

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.