FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2524912836> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2524912836 endingPage "2543" @default.
• W2524912836 startingPage "2531" @default.
• W2524912836 abstract "To provide a systematic overview of the various tools available to screen for post-stroke visual impairment.A review of the literature was conducted including randomised controlled trials, controlled trials, cohort studies, observational studies, systematic reviews and retrospective medical note reviews. All languages were included and translation was obtained. Participants included adults ≥18 years old diagnosed with a visual impairment as a direct cause of a stroke. We searched a broad range of scholarly online resources and hand-searched articles registers of published, unpublished and on-going trials. Search terms included a variety of MESH terms and alternatives in relation to stroke and visual conditions. Study selection was performed by two authors independently. The quality of the evidence and risk of bias were assessed using the STROBE, GRACE and PRISMA statements.A total of 25 articles (n = 2924) were included in this review. Articles appraised reported on tools screening solely for visual impairments or for general post-stroke disabilities inclusive of vision. The majority of identified tools screen for visual perception including visual neglect (VN), with few screening for visual acuity (VA), visual field (VF) loss or ocular motility (OM) defects. Six articles reported on nine screening tools which combined visual screening assessment alongside screening for general stroke disabilities. Of these, three included screening for VA; three screened for VF loss; three screened for OM defects and all screened for VN. Two tools screened for all visual impairments. A further 19 articles were found which reported on individual vision screening tests in stroke populations; two for VF loss; 11 for VN and six for other visual perceptual defects. Most tools cannot accurately account for those with aphasia or communicative deficits, which are common problems following a stroke.There is currently no standardised visual screening tool which can accurately assess all potential post-stroke visual impairments. The current tools screen for only a number of potential stroke-related impairments, which means many visual defects may be missed. The sensitivity of those which screen for all impairments is significantly lowered when patients are unable to report their visual symptoms. Future research is required to develop a tool capable of assessing stroke patients which encompasses all potential visual deficits and can also be easily performed by both the patients and administered by health care professionals in order to ensure all stroke survivors with visual impairment are accurately identified and managed. Implications for Rehabilitation Over 65% of stroke survivors will suffer from a visual impairment, whereas 45% of stroke units do not assess vision. Visual impairment significantly reduces the quality of life, such as being unable to return to work, driving and depression. This review outlines the available screening methods to accurately identify stroke survivors with visual impairments. Identifying visual impairment after stroke can aid general rehabilitation and thus, improve the quality of life for these patients." @default.
• W2524912836 created "2016-10-07" @default.
• W2524912836 creator A5021022929 @default.
• W2524912836 creator A5047139038 @default.
• W2524912836 creator A5051761946 @default.
• W2524912836 date "2016-09-26" @default.
• W2524912836 modified "2023-10-10" @default.
• W2524912836 title "Screening methods for post-stroke visual impairment: a systematic review" @default.
• W2524912836 cites W1968038874 @default.
• W2524912836 cites W1968305202 @default.
• W2524912836 cites W1969771133 @default.
• W2524912836 cites W1974737911 @default.
• W2524912836 cites W1979994931 @default.
• W2524912836 cites W1985183144 @default.
• W2524912836 cites W1985424623 @default.
• W2524912836 cites W1987111906 @default.
• W2524912836 cites W1990496837 @default.
• W2524912836 cites W1996539109 @default.
• W2524912836 cites W1998754911 @default.
• W2524912836 cites W1999937275 @default.
• W2524912836 cites W2005186271 @default.
• W2524912836 cites W2009461058 @default.
• W2524912836 cites W2012379767 @default.
• W2524912836 cites W2015604286 @default.
• W2524912836 cites W2039747543 @default.
• W2524912836 cites W2043867003 @default.
• W2524912836 cites W2043897440 @default.
• W2524912836 cites W2054917061 @default.
• W2524912836 cites W2054957396 @default.
• W2524912836 cites W2062028629 @default.
• W2524912836 cites W2071865073 @default.
• W2524912836 cites W2083778170 @default.
• W2524912836 cites W2089215862 @default.
• W2524912836 cites W2091172508 @default.
• W2524912836 cites W2104732512 @default.
• W2524912836 cites W2107486370 @default.
• W2524912836 cites W2111122173 @default.
• W2524912836 cites W2112606153 @default.
• W2524912836 cites W2113387242 @default.
• W2524912836 cites W2123731698 @default.
• W2524912836 cites W2140320125 @default.
• W2524912836 cites W2144326284 @default.
• W2524912836 cites W2144375342 @default.
• W2524912836 cites W2145489119 @default.
• W2524912836 cites W2151854438 @default.
• W2524912836 cites W2156204015 @default.
• W2524912836 cites W2157529352 @default.
• W2524912836 cites W2159200515 @default.
• W2524912836 cites W2161537254 @default.
• W2524912836 cites W2163632555 @default.
• W2524912836 cites W2169984939 @default.
• W2524912836 cites W2307997912 @default.
• W2524912836 cites W2330057072 @default.
• W2524912836 cites W2331589576 @default.
• W2524912836 cites W2408366772 @default.
• W2524912836 cites W2468996569 @default.
• W2524912836 cites W300479524 @default.
• W2524912836 cites W4307833091 @default.
• W2524912836 cites W4362062050 @default.
• W2524912836 doi "https://doi.org/10.1080/09638288.2016.1231846" @default.
• W2524912836 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27669628" @default.
• W2524912836 hasPublicationYear "2016" @default.
• W2524912836 type Work @default.
• W2524912836 sameAs 2524912836 @default.
• W2524912836 citedByCount "29" @default.
• W2524912836 countsByYear W25249128362018 @default.
• W2524912836 countsByYear W25249128362019 @default.
• W2524912836 countsByYear W25249128362020 @default.
• W2524912836 countsByYear W25249128362021 @default.
• W2524912836 countsByYear W25249128362022 @default.
• W2524912836 countsByYear W25249128362023 @default.
• W2524912836 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2524912836 hasAuthorship W2524912836A5021022929 @default.
• W2524912836 hasAuthorship W2524912836A5047139038 @default.
• W2524912836 hasAuthorship W2524912836A5051761946 @default.
• W2524912836 hasConcept C118487528 @default.
• W2524912836 hasConcept C118552586 @default.
• W2524912836 hasConcept C127413603 @default.
• W2524912836 hasConcept C142724271 @default.
• W2524912836 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W2524912836 hasConcept C189708586 @default.
• W2524912836 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W2524912836 hasConcept C23131810 @default.
• W2524912836 hasConcept C2778257484 @default.
• W2524912836 hasConcept C2779473830 @default.
• W2524912836 hasConcept C2780645631 @default.
• W2524912836 hasConcept C2781372952 @default.
• W2524912836 hasConcept C535046627 @default.
• W2524912836 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2524912836 hasConcept C78519656 @default.
• W2524912836 hasConceptScore W2524912836C118487528 @default.
• W2524912836 hasConceptScore W2524912836C118552586 @default.
• W2524912836 hasConceptScore W2524912836C127413603 @default.
• W2524912836 hasConceptScore W2524912836C142724271 @default.
• W2524912836 hasConceptScore W2524912836C17744445 @default.
• W2524912836 hasConceptScore W2524912836C189708586 @default.
• W2524912836 hasConceptScore W2524912836C199539241 @default.
• W2524912836 hasConceptScore W2524912836C23131810 @default.

• next