ArticleFrontiers in neurology2022
Vision and Visuomotor Performance Following Acute Ischemic Stroke.
Article in Frontiers in neurology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 2 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- European Stroke Organisation (ESO) guideline on visual impairment in stroke.European stroke journal · 2025Guideline
- Systematic Review of Existing Stroke Guidelines: Case for a Change.BioMed research international · 2022Pooled it
- Article
- Persistent visual impairments following mild-to-moderate ischemic stroke.Frontiers in ophthalmology · 2025Article
- Stroke Recovery Is a Journey: Prediction and Potentials of Motor Recovery after a Stroke from a Practical Perspective.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Article
- Age-related decrease in motor contribution to multisensory reaction times in primary school children.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAs measurable sensory and motor deficits are key to the diagnosis of stroke, we investigated the value of objective tablet based vision and visuomotor capacity assessment in acute mild-moderate ischemic stroke (AIS) patients.
methodsSixty AIS patients (65 ± 14 years, 33 males) without pre-existing visual/neurological disorders and acuity better than 6/12 were tested at their bedside during the first week post-stroke and were compared to 40 controls (64 ± 11 years, 15 males). Visual field sensitivity, quantified as mean deviation (dB) and visual acuity (with and without luminance noise), were tested on MRFn (Melbourne Rapid Field-Neural) iPad application. Visuomotor capacity was assessed with the Lee-Ryan Eye-Hand Coordination (EHC) iPad application using a capacitive stylus for iPad held in the preferred hand.Time to trace 3 shapes and displacement errors (deviations of >3.5 mm from the shape) were recorded. Diagnostic capacity was considered with Receiver Operating Characteristics. Vision test outcomes were correlated with National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score at the admission.
resultsOf the 60 AIS patients, 58 grasped the iPad stylus in their preferred right hand even though 31 had left hemisphere lesions. Forty-one patients (68%) with better than 6/12 visual acuity (19 right, 19 left hemisphere and 3 multi-territorial lesions) returned significantly abnormal visual fields. The stroke group took significantly longer (AIS: 93.4 ± 60.1 s; Controls: 33.1 ± 11.5 s,
conclusionsEHC time and vision test outcomes provide an easy and rapid bedside measure that complements existing clinical assessments in AIS. The low correlation between visual function, NIHSS scores and lesion site offers an expanded clinical view of changes following stroke.
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.