SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2015
Pharmacological interventions for unilateral spatial neglect after stroke.
Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- European Stroke Organisation (ESO) guideline on visual impairment in stroke.European stroke journal · 2025Guideline
- Evidence-based umbrella review of cognitive effects of prefrontal tDCS.Social cognitive and affective neuroscience · 2022Pooled it
- Non-pharmacological interventions for spatial neglect or inattention following stroke and other non-progressive brain injury.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021Pooled it
- Noninvasive Brain Stimulations for Unilateral Spatial Neglect after Stroke: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized and Nonrandomized Controlled Trials.Neural plasticity · 2018Pooled it
- Randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled crossover study of single-dose guanfacine in unilateral neglect following stroke.Journal of neurology, neurosurgery, and psychiatry · 2018Trial
- Unilateral Spatial Neglect After Stroke: A Pragmatic Approach to Assessment and Rehabilitation.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Neurorehabilitation Clinical Pathways in Stroke: The Padova Model.Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2026Article
- Neurotransmitters' white matter mapping unveils the neurochemical fingerprints of stroke.Nature communications · 2025Article
- The Effects of a Novel Treatment for Hemianopic Dyslexia on Reading, Symptom Load, and Return to Work.Brain sciences · 2024Article
- Spatial neglect treatment: The brain's spatial-motor Aiming systems.Neuropsychological rehabilitation · 2022Review
- Robot-Assisted Arm Training in Stroke Individuals With Unilateral Spatial Neglect: A Pilot Study.Frontiers in neurology · 2021Article
- Recent theoretical, neural, and clinical advances in sustained attention research.Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences · 2017Review
- Recent advances in treatment of spatial neglect: networks and neuropsychology.Expert review of neurotherapeuticsReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundUnilateral spatial neglect (USN) is characterized by the inability to report or respond to people or objects presented on the side contralateral to the lesioned side of the brain and has been associated with poor functional outcomes and long stays in hospitals and rehabilitation centers. Pharmacological interventions (medical interventions only, use of drugs to improve the health condition), such as dopamine and noradrenergic agonists or pro-cholinergic treatment, have been used in people affected by USN after stroke, and effects of these treatments could provide new insights for health professionals and policy makers.
objectivesTo evaluate the effectiveness and safety of pharmacological interventions for USN after stroke. SEARCH
methodsWe searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (April 2015), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (April 2015), MEDLINE (1946 to April 2015), the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) (1982 to April 2015), EMBASE (1980 to April 2015), PsycINFO (1806 to April 2015) and Latin American Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS) (1982 to April 2015). We also searched trials and research registers, screened reference lists, and contacted study authors and pharmaceutical companies (April 2015). SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-randomized controlled trials (quasi-RCTs) of pharmacological interventions for USN after stroke. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed risk of bias in the included studies and extracted data. MAIN
resultsWe included in the review two studies with a total of 30 randomly assigned participants. We rated the quality of the evidence as very low as the result of study limitations, small numbers of events, and small sample sizes, with imprecision in the confidence interval (CI). We were not able to perform meta-analysis because of heterogeneity related to the different interventions evaluated between included studies. Very low-quality evidence from one trial (20 participants) comparing effects of rivastigmine plus rehabilitation versus rehabilitation on overall USN at discharge showed the following: Barrage (mean difference (MD) 0.30, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.18 to 0.78); Letter Cancellation (MD 10.60, 95% CI 2.07 to 19.13); Sentence Reading (MD 0.20, 95% CI -0.69 to 1.09), and the Wundt-Jastrow Area Illusion Test (MD -4.40, 95% CI -8.28 to -0.52); no statistical significance was observed for the same outcomes at 30 days' follow-up. In another trial (10 participants), study authors showed statistically significant reduction in omissions in the three cancellation tasks under transdermal nicotine treatment (mean number of omissions 2.93 ± 0.5) compared with both baseline (4.95 ± 0.8) and placebo (5.14 ± 0.9) (main effect of treatment condition: F (2.23) = 11.06; P value < 0.0001). One major adverse event occurred in the transdermal nicotine treatment group, and treatment was discontinued in the affected participant. None of the included trials reported data on several of the prespecified outcomes (falls, balance, depression or anxiety, poststroke fatigue, and quality of life). AUTHORS'
conclusionsThe quality of the evidence from available RCTs was very low. The effectiveness and safety of pharmacological interventions for USN after stroke are therefore uncertain. Additional large RCTs are needed to evaluate these treatments.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.