Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39016005›Full record

SynthesisStroke2024

Recovery of Visuospatial Neglect With Standard Treatment: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Margot Juliëtte Overman, Elena Binns, Elise T Milosevich, Nele Demeyere

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Stroke, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
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

4 authors.

Margot Juliëtte OvermanDepartment of Experimental Psychology (M.J.O., E.B., E.T.M.), University of Oxford, United Kingdom.
Elena BinnsDepartment of Experimental Psychology (M.J.O., E.B., E.T.M.), University of Oxford, United Kingdom.
Elise T MilosevichDepartment of Experimental Psychology (M.J.O., E.B., E.T.M.), University of Oxford, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-9175-0779
Nele DemeyereNuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences (N.D.), University of Oxford, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-0416-5147

Funding

Department of Health NIHR302224
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundVisuospatial neglect is a common consequence of stroke and is characterized by impaired attention to contralesional space. Currently, the extent and time course of recovery from neglect are not clearly established. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to determine the recovery trajectory of poststroke neglect with standard treatment.

methodsPsycInfo, Embase, and MEDLINE were searched for articles reporting recovery rates of neglect after stroke. Time since stroke was categorized into early (0-3 months), mid (3-6 months), and late (>6 months) recovery phases. Random-effects models for pooled prevalence were generated for each phase, and potential sources of heterogeneity were explored with metaregressions. Methodological quality of each study was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute checklist, with low-quality studies excluded in sensitivity analyses.

resultsThe search captured 4130 articles including duplicates, and 111 full-text reviews were undertaken. A total of 27 studies reporting data from 839 stroke survivors with neglect were included for review. Meta-analyses indicated a recovery rate of 42% in the early phase, which increased to 53% in the mid-recovery phase. Additional recovery in the late phase was minimal, with an estimated 56% recovery rate. Heterogeneity of studies was high (I

conclusionsMost recovery from neglect occurs in the first 3 months, although additional gains can be expected up to 6 months poststroke. While a large proportion of patients recover from neglect, over 40% show persistent symptoms. Further research is needed on effective rehabilitation interventions, particularly focusing on patients most at risk of chronic visuospatial neglect. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/; Unique identifier: CRD42023388763.

Indexed as

Perceptual DisordersRecovery of FunctionStrokeHumansStroke Rehabilitationcognitioncognitive dysfunctionneuropsychologystrokestroke rehabilitationsystematic review

Identifiers

PMID39016005
PMCPMC11346719

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.