Assessment tools for attention deficits in patients with stroke: a scoping review across components and recovery phases.

IF 2.3 3区 生物学 Q2 MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES
PeerJ Pub Date : 2025-03-27 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.7717/peerj.19163
Katsuya Sakai, Takayuki Miyauchi, Junpei Tanabe
{"title":"Assessment tools for attention deficits in patients with stroke: a scoping review across components and recovery phases.","authors":"Katsuya Sakai, Takayuki Miyauchi, Junpei Tanabe","doi":"10.7717/peerj.19163","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Attention deficits are common in patients with stroke, making the assessment of attention functions crucial for improvement. A previous review reported on attention deficit assessments using specific components in patients with stroke. However, this study only included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and did not encompass the attention assessments included in the observational study. Therefore, we reviewed and categorized the assessments used for attention deficits in patients with stroke according to specific attention components including RCTs and observational studies.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>In this study, we adhered to the scoping review guidelines. The population, concept, and context of this study were stroke; attention deficits, RCTs, observational studies, and assessments; and components (focused, selective, sustained, spatial, divided, visual, and auditory attention) and phase (acute, subacute, and chronic), respectively. Two reviewers independently screened articles at the title, abstract, and full-text levels based on inclusion and exclusion criteria using four databases and the Rayyan software. Furthermore, we identified the study design, sample size, duration since stroke onset, and assessment tools were identified.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Out of 1,423 articles, we selected 35. The study designs included observational studies (80%) and RCTs (20%) and a total of 2,987 patients. The age range was 40.0 ± 7.7 to 83.6 ± 9.7 years. Twenty-four assessment tools were identified, mainly including the Trail Making Test Part A, Test of Everyday Attention, and other assessments (40%, 11.4%, and 62.8%, respectively). Regarding the five components of attention, there were 10 assessments were used each for sustained and selective attention (28.6%), and six each for alertness and divided attention (17.1%). Spatial attention was assessed using only one tool (2.9%).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>We identified various assessment tools for analyzing attention deficit in patients with stroke and mapped them by component. This scoping review would be useful for selecting assessment methods for patients with stroke with attention deficits.</p>","PeriodicalId":19799,"journal":{"name":"PeerJ","volume":"13 ","pages":"e19163"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11955193/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PeerJ","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.19163","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Attention deficits are common in patients with stroke, making the assessment of attention functions crucial for improvement. A previous review reported on attention deficit assessments using specific components in patients with stroke. However, this study only included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and did not encompass the attention assessments included in the observational study. Therefore, we reviewed and categorized the assessments used for attention deficits in patients with stroke according to specific attention components including RCTs and observational studies.

Method: In this study, we adhered to the scoping review guidelines. The population, concept, and context of this study were stroke; attention deficits, RCTs, observational studies, and assessments; and components (focused, selective, sustained, spatial, divided, visual, and auditory attention) and phase (acute, subacute, and chronic), respectively. Two reviewers independently screened articles at the title, abstract, and full-text levels based on inclusion and exclusion criteria using four databases and the Rayyan software. Furthermore, we identified the study design, sample size, duration since stroke onset, and assessment tools were identified.

Results: Out of 1,423 articles, we selected 35. The study designs included observational studies (80%) and RCTs (20%) and a total of 2,987 patients. The age range was 40.0 ± 7.7 to 83.6 ± 9.7 years. Twenty-four assessment tools were identified, mainly including the Trail Making Test Part A, Test of Everyday Attention, and other assessments (40%, 11.4%, and 62.8%, respectively). Regarding the five components of attention, there were 10 assessments were used each for sustained and selective attention (28.6%), and six each for alertness and divided attention (17.1%). Spatial attention was assessed using only one tool (2.9%).

Conclusions: We identified various assessment tools for analyzing attention deficit in patients with stroke and mapped them by component. This scoping review would be useful for selecting assessment methods for patients with stroke with attention deficits.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
PeerJ
PeerJ MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES-
CiteScore
4.70
自引率
3.70%
发文量
1665
审稿时长
10 weeks
期刊介绍: PeerJ is an open access peer-reviewed scientific journal covering research in the biological and medical sciences. At PeerJ, authors take out a lifetime publication plan (for as little as $99) which allows them to publish articles in the journal for free, forever. PeerJ has 5 Nobel Prize Winners on the Board; they have won several industry and media awards; and they are widely recognized as being one of the most interesting recent developments in academic publishing.
×
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