Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33481828›Full record

Trial reportPloS one2021

Prism adaptation treatment to address spatial neglect in an intensive rehabilitation program: A randomized pilot and feasibility trial.

Tomas Vilimovsky, Peii Chen, Kristyna Hoidekrova, Jakub Petioky, Pavel Harsa

Open access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 14% 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 25 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. From evidence to action: Italian recommendations for the diagnosis and treatment of spatial neglect in stroke patients.Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Guideline
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. 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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Tomas VilimovskyDepartment of Psychiatry, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic.ORCID 0000-0001-8258-0771
Peii ChenKessler Foundation, West Orange, NJ, United States of America.
Kristyna HoidekrovaDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic.
Jakub PetiokyRehabilitation Center Kladruby, Kladruby, Czech Republic.
Pavel HarsaDepartment of Psychiatry, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic.
Charles University · CZRutgers, The State University of New Jersey · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Spatial neglect (SN) is a common cognitive disorder after brain injury. Prism adaptation treatment (PAT) is one of the promising interventions for SN albeit inconsistent results from previous studies. We carried out a comparison intervention (PAT vs. Sham) and aimed to evaluate the efficacy of PAT on visuospatial symptoms of SN in an inpatient rehabilitation setting that offered a highly intensive comprehensive brain injury rehabilitation program. A total of 34 patients with moderate-to-severe SN secondary to stroke or traumatic brain injury were randomized to the PAT group and the Sham group (an active control group). Both groups received 10 sessions of treatment, over two weeks, in addition to the rehabilitation therapies provided by their rehabilitation care teams. Outcomes were measured using an ecological instrument (the Catherine Bergego Scale) and paper-and-pencil tests (the Bells Test, the Line Bisection Test and the Scene Copying Test). Patients were assessed at baseline, immediately after treatment, two weeks after treatment, and four weeks after treatment. 23 (67.6%) patients completed treatment and all the assessment sessions and were included in the final analyses using mixed linear modeling. While SN symptoms reduced in both groups, we found no difference between the two groups in the degree of improvement. In addition, the average SN recovery rates were 39.1% and 28.6% in the PAT and Sham groups, respectively, but this discrepancy did not reach statistical significance. Thus, the present study suggests that PAT may contribute little to SN care in the context of a highly intensive inpatient rehabilitation program. Further large-scale investigation is required to uncover the mechanisms underlying PAT and Sham in order to refine the treatment or create new interventions.

Indexed as

Stroke RehabilitationCognition DisordersFeasibility StudiesFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPilot ProjectsStroke

Identifiers

PMID33481828
PMCPMC7822563
OpenAlexW3122858134

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.