The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Reasons for Variability in the Reported Rate of Occurrence of Unilateral Spatial Neglect After Stroke
Open accessAbstract
Background and Purpose —We sought to determine the frequency of occurrence of contralesional unilateral spatial neglect (USN) after stroke and to investigate the effect of side of lesion, nature of assessment tool used, and timing of assessment relative to stroke onset. Methods —We performed a systematic review of published reports, identified by a search of electronic databases (MEDLINE 1966–1997, PSYCHLIT 1974–1996, and CINAHL 1982–1997) and by searching reference lists of the reports selected. Excluded were unpublished, non–English language, and nonhuman studies. Results —Thirty published reports met the selection criteria, 17 of which directly compared right brain damage (RBD) and left brain damage (LBD). Contralesional USN appeared to occur more frequently after RBD than LBD in 16 of these. Both the assessment tool used and the time of assessment relative to stroke onset affected the reported rate of occurrence, although recovery rate data were inadequate (4 reports). Conclusions —The clinical belief that USN occurs more frequently after RBD than LBD was apparently supported by a systematic review of published data. However, an accurate estimate of the rates of occurrence and recovery after stroke could not be derived. Four reasons for the variability among studies were discussed, including subject selection, lesion localization, and nature and timing of assessment. Different USN disorders may exist, which may require type-specific rehabilitation approaches. This may have implications for epidemiological studies and for the development of new treatments. Theoretically driven epidemiological studies are required before adequately powered randomized controlled trials of rehabilitation can be conducted.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Hemispatial neglect: Subtypes, neuroanatomy, and disability
Buxbaum, L. J., Ferraro, M. K., Veramonti, T., Farne, A., Whyte, J., Ladavas, E., Frassinetti, F., & Coslett, H. B. (2004) · Neurology · doi:10.1212/01.wnl.0000113730.73031.f4 · Cited by 590
Sensitivity of clinical and behavioural tests of spatial neglect after right hemisphere stroke
Azouvi, P. (2002) · Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry · doi:10.1136/jnnp.73.2.160 · Cited by 527
Cognitive rehabilitation for spatial neglect following stroke
Bowen, A., Hazelton, C., Pollock, A., & Lincoln, N. (2013) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd003586.pub3 · Cited by 373
Self-citationPrevalence of spatial neglect post-stroke: A systematic review
Esposito, E., Shekhtman, G., & Chen, P. (2021) · Annals of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.rehab.2020.10.010 · Cited by 195
Metadata
- Authors
- Bowen, A., McKenna, K., & Tallis, R. C.
- Venue
- Stroke
- Published
- 1999-06
- Volume
- 30
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 1196-1202
- ISSN
- 0039-2499 (ISSN-L)
- 1524-4628
- OpenAlex
- W2156204015
- Cited by
- 408
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 2.67
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Reasons for Variability in the Reported Rate of Occurrence of Unilateral Spatial Neglect After Stroke. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1161/01.str.30.6.1196
- The paper
- Bowen, A., McKenna, K., & Tallis, R. C. (1999). Reasons for Variability in the Reported Rate of Occurrence of Unilateral Spatial Neglect After Stroke. Stroke. https://doi.org/10.1161/01.str.30.6.1196
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.