Abstract：
Spatial neglect commonly occurs after a stroke, resulting in diverse impacts depending on the type and severity. There are almost 300 tools for assessing neglect, yet there is a lack of knowledge on the psychometric properties of these tools. The objective of this systematic review, registered on Prospero (CRD42021271779), was to determine the quality of the evidence for assessing spatial neglect, categorized by neglect subtype. The following databases were searched on 3rd May 2022 from database inception: Ovid Emcare, Embase, Ovid MEDLINE, APA PsycINFO, Web of Science (SCI-EXPANDED; SSCI; A&HCI; ESCI) and Scopus. All primary peer-reviewed studies (>5 participants) of adults post stroke, reporting any psychometric property of 33 commonly used neglect assessment tools were included. The COSMIN (COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments) risk of bias tool was used to assess the methodological quality of the studies and summarize the psychometric properties of each tool. 164 articles were included, with a total of 12,463 people with stroke. The general quality of the evidence was poor and no one tool had high-quality evidence of both validity and reliability. Eleven tools show some promise as they meet the minimum criteria for good measurement properties for both validity and reliability.
摘要：
空间忽视通常发生在中风后，根据类型和严重程度产生不同的影响。有将近300种评估忽视的工具，然而，对这些工具的心理测量特性缺乏了解。本系统综述的目的，注册于Prospero(CRD42021271779),是确定评估空间忽视的证据质量，按忽略子类型分类。从数据库开始，于2022年5月3日搜索了以下数据库：OvidEmcare，Embase,OvidMEDLINE,APAPsycINFO,WebofScience(SCI-EXPANDED；SSCI；A&HCI；ESCI)和Scopus。所有成人卒中后的主要同行评审研究（>5名参与者），报告了33种常用的忽视评估工具的任何心理测量特性。使用基于COSMIN（基于CONSensus的健康测量指标选择标准）的偏见风险工具来评估研究的方法学质量，并总结每种工具的心理测量特性。包括164篇文章，共有12463人中风。证据的总体质量较差，没有一个工具具有高质量的有效性和可靠性证据。11种工具显示出一些希望，因为它们满足了有效性和可靠性的良好测量特性的最低标准。
