Rossit 2019.
| Study characteristics | ||
| Methods | Controlled prospective study using a single‐blind design Setting: hospital, UK | |
| Participants | Inclusion criteria: stroke lesions as identified by brain imaging report, hemi‐spatial neglect symptoms (in line bisection, BIT, or balloons test), ability to follow instructions, and medical fitness to participate Exclusion criteria were previous or concomitant neurological (e.g. brain tumour, dementia), visual (e.g. cataract), or motor (e.g. arthritis) disease unrelated to the current stroke Age, mean, years (SD): intervention = 65.6 (2.8), control = 64.9 (2.5) Sex (men/women): intervention = 3/7, control = 8/2 Hemisphere damaged: right Time since stroke, months (SD): intervention = 3.1 (0.9), control = 3.2 (0.5) |
|
| Interventions | Visuomotor feedback training (VFT) is a neglect rehabilitation technique that involves simple, inexpensive, and feasible training of grasping to lift rods at the centre. Patients in the intervention group were asked to reach for and grasp the rod with a pincer grip (using the forefinger and the thumb) and to try to lift it up at its centre, so it would be balanced. If they felt that it was not balanced after lifting it, they could repeat the trial until satisfied. Feedback was provided only from the tilting rod; the experimenter did not comment on performance. Patients in the control group were instructed to simply reach for and grasp the rod with a pincer grip (using the forefinger and the thumb) by its non‐neglected end (usually the right) and to lift it up from the mat on that side and place it back down again. Training was delivered for 2 sessions by an experimenter; then patients self‐administered it for 10 sessions over 2 weeks | |
| Outcomes |
Outcomes were measured up to 4 months post intervention |
|
| Notes | ||
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Random sequence generation (selection bias) | Unclear risk | Unclear |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | High risk | Patients randomly assigned to intervention or control group as determined in the order of a list (complete/unrestricted randomisation); order of the list not hidden |
| Blinding of participants | Low risk | "Patients, carers and scorers of our outcome measures remained blind to group assignment throughout the trial, except for the Stroke Impact Scale" |
| Blinding of personnel | High risk | It seems instructions for the 2 arms are different; therefore it is impossible for the staff not to know which people belong to which group |
| Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes | Unclear risk | "The outcome assessment was performed by the experimenter (except the SIS) who also delivered the treatment. However, all measures were scored by a treatment‐blinded researcher" However (see above), it seems unlikely that these could be blinded |
| Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes | Low risk | Attrition equal in each group |
| Selective reporting (reporting bias) | Low risk | All outcomes reported |
| Other bias | Low risk | Nothing obvious |