ArticleBrain sciences2022
The Effect of Mirror Visual Feedback on Spatial Neglect for Patients after Stroke: A Preliminary Randomized Controlled Trial.
Article in Brain sciences, 2022. 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- European Stroke Organisation (ESO) guideline on visual impairment in stroke.European stroke journal · 2025Guideline
- Neurorehabilitation of Visual Neglect: A Narrative Review of Approaches from A.R. Luria to Modern Clinical Protocols.Consortium psychiatricum · 2025Review
- Utilization of Mirror Visual Feedback for Upper Limb Function in Poststroke Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Vision (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
We investigated the effects of mirror visual feedback (MVF), with reference to using a glass wall or a covered mirror, on the reduction of spatial neglect for patients with stroke. A total of 21 subacute patients with left spatial neglect after right-hemispheric stroke were randomly assigned to 3 groups: MVF, sham 1 (viewing the hemiparetic arm through the transparent glass during bilateral arm movement) and sham 2 (using a covered mirror). The 3-week treatment program for all groups consisted of 12 sessions of movement tasks for the hemiparetic arm graded according to the severity of arm impairments. Blinded assessments were administered at pre/post and a three-week follow-up. The results showed that there was no significant advantage for MVF than sham 1; however, MVF was more beneficial than sham 2, as shown by the line crossing (
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.