未经批准:迄今为止,单方面空间忽视(USN)的评估没有黄金标准,一种常见的卒中后认知障碍,目前使用的临床评估提供的敏感性有限。广泛的研究表明,基于计算机(CB)的评估可以更敏感,但是这些还没有被中风服务机构采用。
UNASSIGNED:我们进行了系统回顾,概述了USN的现有CB测试,以确定知识差距和不同方法的积极/消极方面。这篇综述还调查了将CB评估任务引入临床环境的好处和障碍,并探讨了优化未来设计的实际意义。
UNASSIGNED:我们纳入的研究调查了与常规方法相比,CB忽视评估任务在检测脑损伤成人USN方面的功效。通过电子数据库搜索进行研究识别(例如,Scopus),使用关键词和标准化术语组合,没有日期限制(最后搜索:08/06/2022)。文献综述和研究选择基于预先指定的纳入标准。使用诊断准确性研究工具(Quadas-2)的质量评估来评估研究质量。数据合成包括叙事合成,一张总结证据的表格,并根据影响方向图进行计票分析。
UNASSIGNED:共有28项研究符合资格标准并被纳入审查。根据我们的结果,13/28研究探索了常规任务的CB版本,11/28涉及视觉搜索任务,和5/28其他类型的任务。投票计数分析显示,17/28研究发现CB任务的灵敏度与常规方法相同或更高,并且与常规方法呈正相关(15/28研究)。最后,20/28研究显示,CB任务有效地检测了不同患者组和对照组中的USN患者(17/28)。
UNASSIGNED:本次审查的结果为今后实施CB评估提供了实际影响,提供重要信息以增强各种方法论问题。这项研究增加了我们对使用CB任务进行USN评估的理解,探索它们与传统方法相比的功效和益处,并考虑在临床环境中采用它们。
UNASSIGNED: To date, no gold standard exists for the assessment of unilateral spatial neglect (USN), a common post-stroke cognitive impairment, with limited sensitivity provided by currently used clinical assessments. Extensive research has shown that computer-based (CB) assessment can be more sensitive, but these have not been adopted by stroke services yet.
UNASSIGNED: We conducted a systematic
review providing an overview of existing CB tests for USN to identify knowledge gaps and positive/negative aspects of different methods. This
review also investigated the benefits and barriers of introducing CB assessment tasks to clinical settings and explored practical implications for optimizing future designs.
UNASSIGNED: We included studies that investigated the efficacy of CB neglect assessment tasks compared to conventional methods in detecting USN for adults with brain damage. Study identification was conducted through electronic database searches (e.g., Scopus), using keywords and standardized terms combinations, without date limitation (last search: 08/06/2022). Literature
review and study selection were based on prespecified inclusion criteria. The quality of studies was assessed with the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies tool (Quadas-2). Data synthesis included a narrative synthesis, a table summarizing the evidence, and vote counting analysis based on a direction of effect plot.
UNASSIGNED: A total of 28 studies met the eligibility criteria and were included in the
review. According to our results, 13/28 studies explored CB versions of conventional tasks, 11/28 involved visual search tasks, and 5/28 other types of tasks. The vote counting analysis revealed that 17/28 studies found CB tasks had either equal or higher sensitivity than conventional methods and positive correlation with conventional methods (15/28 studies). Finally, 20/28 studies showed CB tasks effectively detected patients with USN within different patient groups and control groups (17/28).
UNASSIGNED: The findings of this
review provide practical implications for the implementation of CB assessment in the future, offering important information to enhance a variety of methodological issues. The study adds to our understanding of using CB tasks for USN assessment, exploring their efficacy and benefits compared to conventional methods, and considers their adoption in clinical environments.