Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26023203›Full record

ReviewPractical neurology2015

Spatial neglect.

Korina Li, Paresh A Malhotra

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Practical neurology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed
3.3field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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.

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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 102 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. The functions of consciousness in visual processing.Neuroscience of consciousness · 2023
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Implementing New Technologies to Improve Visual-Spatial Functions in Patients with Impaired Consciousness.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Article
  14. Observational
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Comparing Home Upper Extremity Activity with Clinical Evaluations of Arm Function in Chronic Stroke.Archives of rehabilitation research and clinical translation · 2020
    Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Korina LiCentre for Restorative Neuroscience, Division of Brain Sciences, Imperial College London, London, UK Department of Neurology, University Hospital Coventry, Coventry, West Midlands, UK.
Paresh A MalhotraCentre for Restorative Neuroscience, Division of Brain Sciences, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Imperial College London · GBUniversity Hospital Coventry · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The syndrome of visuospatial neglect is a common consequence of unilateral brain injury. It is most often associated with stroke and is more severe and persistent following right hemisphere damage, with reported frequencies in the acute stage of up to 80%. Neglect is primarily a disorder of attention whereby patients characteristically fail to orientate, to report or to respond to stimuli located on the contralesional side. Neglect is usually caused by large strokes in the middle cerebral artery territory and is heterogeneous, such that most patients do not manifest every feature of the syndrome. A number of treatments may improve neglect, but there is no widely accepted universal approach to therapy. Although most patients recover spontaneously, the evidence suggests that they continue to have significant cognitive impairments, particularly relating to attention.

Indexed as

Perceptual DisordersFemaleHumansMaleATTENTIONCOGNITIONNEGLECTSTROKE

Identifiers

PMID26023203
PMCPMC4602245
OpenAlexW4235843414

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.