Identifying spatial neglect - an updated systematic review of the psychometric properties of assessment tools in adults post-stroke.

IF 1.7 3区 心理学 Q4 NEUROSCIENCES
Lindy J Williams, Tobias Loetscher, Susan Hillier, Kimberly Hreha, Jennifer Jones, Audrey Bowen, Jocelyn Kernot
{"title":"Identifying spatial neglect - an updated systematic review of the psychometric properties of assessment tools in adults post-stroke.","authors":"Lindy J Williams, Tobias Loetscher, Susan Hillier, Kimberly Hreha, Jennifer Jones, Audrey Bowen, Jocelyn Kernot","doi":"10.1080/09602011.2024.2346212","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":54729,"journal":{"name":"Neuropsychological Rehabilitation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Neuropsychological Rehabilitation","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09602011.2024.2346212","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"NEUROSCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

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.

识别空间忽略--中风后成人评估工具心理测量特性的最新系统回顾。
空间忽略通常发生在中风后,根据类型和严重程度的不同会造成不同的影响。目前有近 300 种评估忽视的工具,但人们对这些工具的心理测量特性缺乏了解。本系统性综述已在 Prospero(CRD42021271779)上注册,目的是确定按忽视亚型分类的空间忽视评估证据的质量。从 2022 年 5 月 3 日开始,对以下数据库进行了检索:Ovid Emcare、Embase、Ovid MEDLINE、APA PsycINFO、Web of Science(SCI-EXPANDED;SSCI;A&HCI;ESCI)和 Scopus。纳入了所有针对中风后成人、报告了 33 种常用忽视评估工具任何心理测量特性的主要同行评审研究(参与人数大于 5 人)。采用 COSMIN(基于共识的健康测量工具选择标准)偏倚风险工具评估研究的方法学质量,并总结每种工具的心理测量特性。共纳入 164 篇文章,涉及 12,463 名中风患者。证据的总体质量较差,没有一种工具同时具有高质量的有效性和可靠性证据。有 11 种工具在有效性和可靠性方面都达到了良好测量特性的最低标准,显示出一定的前景。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Neuropsychological Rehabilitation
Neuropsychological Rehabilitation 医学-神经科学
CiteScore
6.30
自引率
7.40%
发文量
78
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Neuropsychological Rehabilitation publishes human experimental and clinical research related to rehabilitation, recovery of function, and brain plasticity. The journal is aimed at clinicians who wish to inform their practice in the light of the latest scientific research; at researchers in neurorehabilitation; and finally at researchers in cognitive neuroscience and related fields interested in the mechanisms of recovery and rehabilitation. Papers on neuropsychological assessment will be considered, and special topic reviews (2500-5000 words) addressing specific key questions in rehabilitation, recovery and brain plasticity will also be welcomed. The latter will enter a fast-track refereeing process.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信