Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33771214›Full record

SynthesisSystematic reviews2021

Biomechanical adaptation to post-stroke visual field loss: a systematic review.

Adel Elfeky, Kristiaan D'Août, Rebecca Lawson, Lauren R Hepworth, Nicholas D A Thomas, Abigail Clynch, Fiona J Rowe

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Systematic reviews, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 33% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Adel ElfekyDepartment of Health Services Research, University of Liverpool, 1-3 Brownlow Street, Liverpool, L69 3GL, UK.
Kristiaan D'AoûtInstitute of Life Course and Medical Sciences, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Rebecca LawsonDepartment of Health Services Research, University of Liverpool, 1-3 Brownlow Street, Liverpool, L69 3GL, UK.
Lauren R HepworthDepartment of Health Services Research, University of Liverpool, 1-3 Brownlow Street, Liverpool, L69 3GL, UK.
Nicholas D A ThomasDepartment of Health Services Research, University of Liverpool, 1-3 Brownlow Street, Liverpool, L69 3GL, UK.
Abigail ClynchInstitute of Life Course and Medical Sciences, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Fiona J RoweDepartment of Health Services Research, University of Liverpool, 1-3 Brownlow Street, Liverpool, L69 3GL, UK. rowef@liverpool.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0001-9210-9131
University of Liverpool · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHomonymous visual field defects represent the most frequent type of visual field loss after stroke, affecting nearly 30% of individuals with unilateral post-chiasmal brain damage. This review aimed to gather the available evidence on the biomechanical changes to visual field loss following stroke.

methodsA systematic review was conducted inclusive of randomised controlled trials, cohort studies, before-after studies and case-controlled studies. Studies including adult and paediatric participants that investigated eye, head, or body movements in post-stroke visual field loss during visual exploration tasks were included. Search terms included a range of MESH terms as well as alternative terms relating to stroke, visual field loss, hemianopia, visual functions and scanning behaviour. Articles were selected by two authors independently. Data were extracted by one author and verified by a second. All included articles were assessed for risk of bias using checklists appropriate to the study design.

resultsThirty-six articles (1123 participants) were included in the overall review (Kappa 0.863) and categorised into simulated or true visual field loss (typically hemianopia). Seven studies identified the biomechanical alterations to simulated hemianopia compared to normal performance. Twenty-nine studies detailed eye, head and body movement parameters in true hemianopia. Hemianopic participants and healthy adults with simulated hemianopia differed significantly from controls in various fixation and saccade parameters as indicated by increased number and duration of fixations, number and duration of saccades and scan path length with shorter mean saccadic amplitude. Under simulated hemianopia, participants were consistently biased towards the sighted visual field while gaze behaviour in true hemianopia was biased in the direction of the blind hemifield.

conclusionsThere is considerable evidence on the altered eye movements that occur in true hemianopia and in healthy adults with simulated hemianopia. Successful performance in naturalistic tasks of visual exploration appears to be related to compensatory mechanisms of visual exploratory behaviour, namely, an increase in the amplitude and peak velocity of saccades, widening horizontally the distribution of eye movements, and a shift of the overall distribution of saccades into the blind field. This review highlights the lack of studies reporting head and other body movement parameters in hemianopia. Further studies with robust methodology and large sample sizes involving participants with post-stroke visual field loss are needed. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42020194403.

Indexed as

StrokeVisual FieldsAdultChildHemianopsiaHumansSaccadesVision DisordersBiomechanicalHemianopiaMovementStrokeVisual field

Identifiers

PMID33771214
PMCPMC8004433
OpenAlexW3137440306

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.