Technologies for the three-dimensional assessment and treatment of unilateral spatial neglect in individuals with stroke: a systematic review.
Daniele Somma, Alice Finocchi, Silvia Campagnini and 8 others
PMID 41422024WHAT IT FOUND
Virtual reality is the dominant 3D technology for neglect, but evidence remains weak.
Randomised trials show inconsistent results, with many failing to find significant differences against conventional therapy. Robotics are rarely used alone, and most studies are small pilots without clear efficacy.
Key findings
01Virtual reality was the most frequently employed technology for both assessment and treatment, while robotic systems were less represented and mostly used in treatment.
02Results from the five randomised controlled trials were inconsistent, with most trials reporting no significant between-group differences in standard clinical scales.
03The review could not perform a meta-analysis due to high heterogeneity in study designs and outcomes, limiting the ability to draw firm conclusions about effectiveness.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for PTsWhat it means for OTsWhat it means for SLPs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
High heterogeneity in study designs and outcome measures prevented a meta-analysis. Many included studies were small pilots or proof-of-concept trials with limited sample sizes. Risk of bias was moderate to high in many non-randomised studies due to lack of blinding and potential confounding. Most studies focused on validity rather than reliability or responsiveness of the technologies. The review included technical studies with healthy participants, which may not directly translate to clinical populations.
Declared interests
The study was funded by the Ministero della Salute and the Ministero dell'Università e della Ricerca. No other conflicts of interest were reported.
The easy way to misread this
Do not interpret the inclusion of 37 studies as strong evidence for efficacy. Most studies were small pilots or observational, and the five randomised trials showed inconsistent results, with many failing to demonstrate significant benefit over conventional therapy.
Summarised by AI from the full paper, without a clinician reviewing it. Check it against the source before it changes what you do. Read it on PubMed →