Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26490254›Full record

SynthesisNeuropsychology review2016

Multisensory Stimulation to Improve Low- and Higher-Level Sensory Deficits after Stroke: A Systematic Review.

Angelica Maria Tinga, Johanna Maria Augusta Visser-Meily, Maarten Jeroen van der Smagt, Stefan Van der Stigchel, Raymond van Ee, Tanja Cornelia Wilhelmina Nijboer

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Neuropsychology review, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
–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

25 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Audio-visual stimulation for visual compensatory functions in stroke survivors with visual field defect: a systematic review.Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2022
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Trial
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Are We Ready for Real-world Neuroscience?Journal of cognitive neuroscience · 2019
    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

6 authors.

Angelica Maria TingaDepartment of Experimental Psychology, Hemholtz Institute, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Johanna Maria Augusta Visser-MeilyBrain Center Rudolf Magnus, and Center of Excellence for Rehabilitation Medicine, University Medical Center Utrecht, and De Hoogstraat Rehabilitation, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Maarten Jeroen van der SmagtDepartment of Experimental Psychology, Hemholtz Institute, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Stefan Van der StigchelDepartment of Experimental Psychology, Hemholtz Institute, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Raymond van EeDepartment of Brain, Body & Behavior, Philips Research Laboratories, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.
Tanja Cornelia Wilhelmina NijboerDepartment of Experimental Psychology, Hemholtz Institute, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands. t.c.w.nijboer@uu.nl.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The aim of this systematic review was to integrate and assess evidence for the effectiveness of multisensory stimulation (i.e., stimulating at least two of the following sensory systems: visual, auditory, and somatosensory) as a possible rehabilitation method after stroke. Evidence was considered with a focus on low-level, perceptual (visual, auditory and somatosensory deficits), as well as higher-level, cognitive, sensory deficits. We referred to the electronic databases Scopus and PubMed to search for articles that were published before May 2015. Studies were included which evaluated the effects of multisensory stimulation on patients with low- or higher-level sensory deficits caused by stroke. Twenty-one studies were included in this review and the quality of these studies was assessed (based on eight elements: randomization, inclusion of control patient group, blinding of participants, blinding of researchers, follow-up, group size, reporting effect sizes, and reporting time post-stroke). Twenty of the twenty-one included studies demonstrate beneficial effects on low- and/or higher-level sensory deficits after stroke. Notwithstanding these beneficial effects, the quality of the studies is insufficient for valid conclusion that multisensory stimulation can be successfully applied as an effective intervention. A valuable and necessary next step would be to set up well-designed randomized controlled trials to examine the effectiveness of multisensory stimulation as an intervention for low- and/or higher-level sensory deficits after stroke. Finally, we consider the potential mechanisms of multisensory stimulation for rehabilitation to guide this future research.

Indexed as

Stroke RehabilitationAcoustic StimulationBrainCognition DisordersHumansPerceptual DisordersPhotic StimulationPhysical StimulationSensation DisordersTreatment OutcomeHemianopiaMultisensoryNeglectPerceptual disordersRehabilitationReviewStroke

Identifiers

PMID26490254
PMCPMC4762927

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.