Search

Objective: People exhibiting post-stroke lateropulsion actively push their body across the midline to the more affected side and/or resist weight shift toward the less affected side. Despite its prevalence and associated negative rehabilitation outcomes, no clinical practice guidelines exist for the rehabilitation of post-stroke lateropulsion. We aimed to develop consensus-based clinical practice recommendations for managing post-stroke lateropulsion using an international expert panel., Design: This Delphi panel process conformed with Guidance on Conducting and Reporting Delphi Studies recommendations., Participants: Panel members had demonstrated clinical and/or scientific background in the rehabilitation of people with post-stroke lateropulsion., Main Measures: The process consisted of four electronic survey rounds. Round One consisted of 13 open questions. Subsequent rounds ascertained levels of agreement with statements derived from Round One. Consensus was defined a priori as ≥75% agreement (agree or strongly agree), or ≥70% agreement after excluding 'unsure' responses., Results: Twenty participants completed all four rounds. Consensus was achieved regarding a total of 119 recommendations for rehabilitation approaches and considerations for rehabilitation delivery, positioning, managing fear of falling and fatigue, optimal therapy dose, and discharge planning. Statements for which 'some agreement' (50%-74% agreement) was achieved and those for which recommendations remain to be clarified were recorded., Conclusions: These recommendations build on existing evidence to guide the selection of interventions for post-stroke lateropulsion. Future research is required to elaborate specific rehabilitation strategies, consider the impact of additional cognitive and perceptual impairments, describe positioning options, and detail optimal therapy dose for people with lateropulsion.

Background: To date, no gold standard exists for the assessment of unilateral spatial neglect (USN), a common post-stroke cognitive impairment, with limited sensitivity provided by currently used clinical assessments. Extensive research has shown that computer-based (CB) assessment can be more sensitive, but these have not been adopted by stroke services yet., Objective: We conducted a systematic review providing an overview of existing CB tests for USN to identify knowledge gaps and positive/negative aspects of different methods. This review also investigated the benefits and barriers of introducing CB assessment tasks to clinical settings and explored practical implications for optimizing future designs., Methodology: We included studies that investigated the efficacy of CB neglect assessment tasks compared to conventional methods in detecting USN for adults with brain damage. Study identification was conducted through electronic database searches (e.g., Scopus), using keywords and standardized terms combinations, without date limitation (last search: 08/06/2022). Literature review and study selection were based on prespecified inclusion criteria. The quality of studies was assessed with the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies tool (Quadas-2). Data synthesis included a narrative synthesis, a table summarizing the evidence, and vote counting analysis based on a direction of effect plot., Results: A total of 28 studies met the eligibility criteria and were included in the review. According to our results, 13/28 studies explored CB versions of conventional tasks, 11/28 involved visual search tasks, and 5/28 other types of tasks. The vote counting analysis revealed that 17/28 studies found CB tasks had either equal or higher sensitivity than conventional methods and positive correlation with conventional methods (15/28 studies). Finally, 20/28 studies showed CB tasks effectively detected patients with USN within different patient groups and control groups (17/28)., Conclusions: The findings of this review provide practical implications for the implementation of CB assessment in the future, offering important information to enhance a variety of methodological issues. The study adds to our understanding of using CB tasks for USN assessment, exploring their efficacy and benefits compared to conventional methods, and considers their adoption in clinical environments., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2022 Giannakou, Lin and Punt.)