4.6 Article

Smooth Pursuit Bedside Training Reduces Disability and Unawareness During the Activities of Daily Living in Neglect: A Randomized Controlled Trial

期刊

NEUROREHABILITATION AND NEURAL REPAIR
卷 28, 期 6, 页码 554-563

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/1545968313517757

关键词

hemineglect; visual smooth pursuit; stroke rehabilitation; anosognosia; visual scanning; hemianopsia

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. Neglect is associated with disability, unawareness, poor long-term outcome, and dependence from caregivers. No randomized trial has evaluated the effects of smooth pursuit eye movement training (SPT) and visual scanning training (VST) at the bedside on these variables. Objective. To compare the effects of SPT and VST in postacute stroke at 1 month with left neglect. Methods: We carried out an assessor-blinded, randomized controlled trial. The 24 participants were randomly allocated to either SPT or VST (n = 12 each). They received 20 treatment sessions lasting 30 minutes each at the bedside over 4 weeks. Outcome measures included the Functional Neglect Index (FNI) based on 4 tasks: find objects on a tray, stick bisection, picture search, and gaze orientation. In addition, the Unawareness and Behavioral Neglect Index (UBNI) with 6 items about unawareness and 4 about neglect in activities of daily living, the Help index (required assistance in 10 functional activities), the Barthel Index, and the rehabilitation phase were rated by treatment-blinded assessors. Outcome measures were obtained before and immediately after the end of the interventions and at a 2-week follow-up. Results. Significantly greater improvements were obtained after SPT versus VST treatment in the FNI and UBNI, and there were continued improvements selectively in the SPT group 2 weeks later. Conclusions. SPT accelerates recovery from functional neglect and reduces unawareness significantly. Bedside neglect treatment using SPT is effective and feasible early after stroke.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据