ArticlePeerJ2025
Assessment tools for attention deficits in patients with stroke: a scoping review across components and recovery phases.
Article in PeerJ, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Eye-tracking phenotypes reveal clinically meaningful heterogeneity of attention and executive control dysfunction after stroke.Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation · 2026Article
- Mobile Application-Based Interventions to Improve Attention in Stroke Survivors: A Scoping Review.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2026Review
- Compensatory Strategies to Improve Functional Cognition Post-Stroke: A Review for Caregiver Empowerment and Burden Reduction.Brain sciences · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Attention deficits are common in patients with stroke, making the assessment of attention functions crucial for improvement. A previous review reported on attention deficit assessments using specific components in patients with stroke. However, this study only included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and did not encompass the attention assessments included in the observational study. Therefore, we reviewed and categorized the assessments used for attention deficits in patients with stroke according to specific attention components including RCTs and observational studies. Method: In this study, we adhered to the scoping review guidelines. The population, concept, and context of this study were stroke; attention deficits, RCTs, observational studies, and assessments; and components (focused, selective, sustained, spatial, divided, visual, and auditory attention) and phase (acute, subacute, and chronic), respectively. Two reviewers independently screened articles at the title, abstract, and full-text levels based on inclusion and exclusion criteria using four databases and the Rayyan software. Furthermore, we identified the study design, sample size, duration since stroke onset, and assessment tools were identified. Results: Out of 1,423 articles, we selected 35. The study designs included observational studies (80%) and RCTs (20%) and a total of 2,987 patients. The age range was 40.0 ± 7.7 to 83.6 ± 9.7 years. Twenty-four assessment tools were identified, mainly including the Trail Making Test Part A, Test of Everyday Attention, and other assessments (40%, 11.4%, and 62.8%, respectively). Regarding the five components of attention, there were 10 assessments were used each for sustained and selective attention (28.6%), and six each for alertness and divided attention (17.1%). Spatial attention was assessed using only one tool (2.9%). Conclusions: We identified various assessment tools for analyzing attention deficit in patients with stroke and mapped them by component. This scoping review would be useful for selecting assessment methods for patients with stroke with attention deficits.
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.