Stroke. 2007;38:2869-2870
Published online before print August 30, 2007,
doi: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.107.490227
(Stroke. 2007;38:2869.)
© 2007 American Heart Association, Inc.
Rehabilitation for Spatial Neglect Improves Test Performance but Not Disability
Audrey Bowen, BA, MSc, PhD
Nadina B. Lincoln, BSc, MSc, PhD
From the University of Manchester (A.B.), UK; and the University of Nottingham (N.B.L.), UK.
Correspondence to Dr Audrey Bowen, Human Communication and Deafness, Humanities Devas Street, University of Manchester, School of Psychological Sciences, Oxford Rd, Manchester M13 9PL, UK. E-mail audrey.bowen{at}manchester.ac.uk
Graeme J. Hankey MD, FRCP Section Editor
Key Words: attention neglect rehabilitation systematic review
 |
Introduction
|
|---|
Unilateral spatial neglect causes difficulty attending to one
side of space and adversely affects activities of daily living.
 |
Objective
|
|---|
This updated systematic review examined the effectiveness of
cognitive rehabilitation aimed at spatial neglect after stroke.
The primary outcome was at the level of disability (restricted
activity), specifically whether any benefits were maintained
beyond the end of the intervention. Immediate effects, impairment
measures and discharge destination were also investigated.
 |
Materials and Methods
|
|---|
We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (last
searched July 4, 2005), MEDLINE (1966 to July 2005), EMBASE
(1980 to July 2005), CINAHL (1983 to July 2005), PsycINFO (1974
to July 2005), UK National Research Register (July 2005). We
hand-searched relevant journals, screened reference lists, and
tracked citations using SCISEARCH. Two reviewers independently
selected trials, extracted data, and assessed trial quality.
To reduce bias we included only randomized controlled trials
(RCT) of neglect rehabilitation. We excluded studies of general
stroke rehabilitation and those with mixed patient groups, unless
>75% of their sample were stroke patients, or separate stroke
data were available.
 |
Main Results
|
|---|
There were 12 eligible RCTs with 306 participants. Only 4 had
adequate allocation concealment, ie, low risk of selection bias.
A large number of outcome measures were reported. Only 6 studies
measured disability and 2 investigated whether the effects persisted
(the primary outcome). The overall effect was not statistically
significant (SMD 0.61, 95% CI, –0.42, 1.63).
In contrast, there was improved performance on some, but not all of the secondary outcomes (impairment measures). As shown in the Figure, there was a reduction in the number of errors made on cancellation tests (immediate, 4 studies: SMD, –0.65; 95% CI, –1.28, –0.01; follow up, 3 studies: SMD, –0.76; 95% CI, –1.39, –0.13) and on line bisection (immediate, 4 studies, SMD, –0.84; 95% CI, –1.36, –0.33; follow up, 1 study: SMD, –1.09; 95% CI, –2.0, –0.18). Discharge destination (1 study) was not significant (odds ratio, 1.4; 95% CI, 0.45, 4.35).

View larger version (25K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Figure. Neglect rehabilitation reduces the errors made on cancellation tests, measured immediately postintervention and at follow-up.
|
|
 |
Conclusions
|
|---|
Several types of neglect specific approaches are now described
in the literature. They can alter performance on impairment
measures and warrant further investigation in high quality randomized
controlled trials. Training in visual scanning was the approach
most often related to improving performance detecting and cancelling
visual targets or bisecting lines. Prism use (simply wearing
prisms rather than prism adaptation training) was also successfully
used in 1 study but outcome was not measured after the intervention
ended, so we do not know whether prism effects persist. However,
there is insufficient evidence to support or refute the effectiveness
of any of these approaches at reducing disability, the main
aim of rehabilitation. It is essential that future trials are
adequately powered and choose outcome measures that determine
effects on disability that persist beyond the end of the intervention.
Because we did not review whether patients with neglect benefited
from rehabilitation input in general, patients with neglect
should continue to receive general stroke rehabilitation services.
This Cochrane review is ongoing and the authors would be grateful
to receive information about on-going trials.
Note: The full text of this review should be cited as: Bowen A, Lincoln NB. Cognitive rehabilitation for spatial neglect following stroke. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2007; Issue 2. Art. No.: CD003586. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003586.pub2.
 |
Acknowledgments
|
|---|
Disclosures
None.
Received April 4, 2007;
accepted April 11, 2007.