↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Pharmacological interventions for unilateral spatial neglect after stroke

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (71st percentile)

Mentioned by

7 tweeters
1 Facebook page


15 Dimensions

Readers on

280 Mendeley
Pharmacological interventions for unilateral spatial neglect after stroke
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd010882.pub2
Pubmed ID

Gustavo José Luvizutto, Rodrigo Bazan, Gabriel Pereira Braga, Luiz Antônio de Lima Resende, Silméia Garcia Z Bazan, Regina El Dib


Unilateral spatial neglect (USN) is characterized by the inability to report or respond to people or objects presented on the side contralateral to the lesioned side of the brain and has been associated with poor functional outcomes and long stays in hospitals and rehabilitation centers. Pharmacological interventions (medical interventions only, use of drugs to improve the health condition), such as dopamine and noradrenergic agonists or pro-cholinergic treatment, have been used in people affected by USN after stroke, and effects of these treatments could provide new insights for health professionals and policy makers. To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of pharmacological interventions for USN after stroke. We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (April 2015), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (April 2015), MEDLINE (1946 to April 2015), the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) (1982 to April 2015), EMBASE (1980 to April 2015), PsycINFO (1806 to April 2015) and Latin American Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS) (1982 to April 2015). We also searched trials and research registers, screened reference lists, and contacted study authors and pharmaceutical companies (April 2015). We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-randomized controlled trials (quasi-RCTs) of pharmacological interventions for USN after stroke. Two review authors independently assessed risk of bias in the included studies and extracted data. We included in the review two studies with a total of 30 randomly assigned participants. We rated the quality of the evidence as very low as the result of study limitations, small numbers of events, and small sample sizes, with imprecision in the confidence interval (CI). We were not able to perform meta-analysis because of heterogeneity related to the different interventions evaluated between included studies. Very low-quality evidence from one trial (20 participants) comparing effects of rivastigmine plus rehabilitation versus rehabilitation on overall USN at discharge showed the following: Barrage (mean difference (MD) 0.30, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.18 to 0.78); Letter Cancellation (MD 10.60, 95% CI 2.07 to 19.13); Sentence Reading (MD 0.20, 95% CI -0.69 to 1.09), and the Wundt-Jastrow Area Illusion Test (MD -4.40, 95% CI -8.28 to -0.52); no statistical significance was observed for the same outcomes at 30 days' follow-up. In another trial (10 participants), study authors showed statistically significant reduction in omissions in the three cancellation tasks under transdermal nicotine treatment (mean number of omissions 2.93 ± 0.5) compared with both baseline (4.95 ± 0.8) and placebo (5.14 ± 0.9) (main effect of treatment condition: F (2.23) = 11.06; P value < 0.0001). One major adverse event occurred in the transdermal nicotine treatment group, and treatment was discontinued in the affected participant. None of the included trials reported data on several of the prespecified outcomes (falls, balance, depression or anxiety, poststroke fatigue, and quality of life). The quality of the evidence from available RCTs was very low. The effectiveness and safety of pharmacological interventions for USN after stroke are therefore uncertain. Additional large RCTs are needed to evaluate these treatments.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 280 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Unknown 277 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 45 16%
Student > Bachelor 33 12%
Researcher 32 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 22 8%
Student > Postgraduate 17 6%
Other 47 17%
Unknown 84 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 62 22%
Nursing and Health Professions 47 17%
Psychology 22 8%
Neuroscience 15 5%
Social Sciences 10 4%
Other 31 11%
Unknown 93 33%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 19 April 2019.
All research outputs
of 22,832,057 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 12,320 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 285,670 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 307 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,832,057 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,320 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 30.4. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 285,670 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 307 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.