Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24349387›Full record

Trial reportPloS one2013

A circle-monitor for computerised assessment of visual neglect in peripersonal space.

Lena Ulm, Dorota Wohlrapp, Marcus Meinzer, Robert Steinicke, Alexej Schatz, Petra Denzler, Juliane Klehmet, Christian Dohle, Michael Niedeggen, Andreas Meisel and 1 more

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract readClinical Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in PloS one, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT01399073 (Virtual Reality for Neglect Diagnostics), which is not on this map. Cited by 8 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 49% of its field
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.

NCT01399073 completednot on this map

Virtual Reality for Neglect Diagnostics

TypeobservationalSponsorCharite University, Berlin, GermanyRan2011 to 2012Enrolled27ConditionsSpatial Neglect, StrokeArmsvirtual reality setup, paper and pencil tests, c-mri
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
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

11 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Lena UlmNeuroCure Clinical Research Center and Department of Neurology, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Dorota WohlrappNeuroCure Clinical Research Center and Department of Neurology, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Marcus MeinzerCenter for Stroke Research Berlin, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Robert SteinickeCenter for Stroke Research Berlin, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Alexej SchatzDepartment of Biology, Humboldt University Berlin and Cluster of Excellence NeuroCure, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Petra DenzlerMedian Klinik Berlin-Kladow, Berlin, Germany.
Juliane KlehmetNeuroCure Clinical Research Center and Department of Neurology, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Christian DohleCenter for Stroke Research Berlin, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany ; Median Klinik Berlin-Kladow, Berlin, Germany ; Center for Rehabilitation Research, University of Potsdam, Potsdam, Germany.
Michael NiedeggenDepartment of Educational Science and Psychology, Free University Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Andreas MeiselNeuroCure Clinical Research Center and Department of Neurology, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany ; Center for Stroke Research Berlin, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
York WinterDepartment of Biology, Humboldt University Berlin and Cluster of Excellence NeuroCure, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin · DEFreie Universität Berlin · DEUniversity of Potsdam · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

unlabelledCurrent assessment of visual neglect involves paper-and-pencil tests or computer-based tasks. Both have been criticised because of their lack of ecological validity as target stimuli can only be presented in a restricted visual range. This study examined the user-friendliness and diagnostic strength of a new "Circle-Monitor" (CM), which enlarges the range of the peripersonal space, in comparison to a standard paper-and-pencil test (Neglect-Test, NET).

methodsTen stroke patients with neglect and ten age-matched healthy controls were examined by the NET and the CM test comprising of four subtests (Star Cancellation, Line Bisection, Dice Task, and Puzzle Test).

resultsThe acceptance of the CM in elderly controls and neglect patients was high. Participants rated the examination by CM as clear, safe and more enjoyable than NET. Healthy controls performed at ceiling on all subtests, without any systematic differences between the visual fields. Both NET and CM revealed significant differences between controls and patients in Line Bisection, Star Cancellation and visuo-constructive tasks (NET: Figure Copying, CM: Puzzle Test). Discriminant analyses revealed cross-validated assignment of patients and controls to groups was more precise when based on the CM (hit rate 90%) as compared to the NET (hit rate 70%).

conclusionThe CM proved to be a sensitive novel tool to diagnose visual neglect symptoms quickly and accurately with superior diagnostic validity compared to a standard neglect test while being well accepted by patients. Due to its upgradable functions the system may also be a valuable tool not only to test for non-visual neglect symptoms, but also to provide treatment and assess its outcome.

Indexed as

Computer TerminalsAgedFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedStrokeVision Disorders

Identifiers

PMID24349387
PMCPMC3861461
OpenAlexW1999067664

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

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.