Literature DB >> 27669628

Screening methods for post-stroke visual impairment: a systematic review.

Kerry Louise Hanna1, Lauren Rachel Hepworth1, Fiona Rowe1.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To provide a systematic overview of the various tools available to screen for post-stroke visual impairment.
METHODS: 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 We searched a broad range of scholarly online resources and hand-searched articles registers of published, unpublished and on-going trials.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.
RESULTS: 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.
CONCLUSION: 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.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Vision screening; review; stroke; tool; vision assessment

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27669628     DOI: 10.1080/09638288.2016.1231846

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Disabil Rehabil        ISSN: 0963-8288            Impact factor:   3.033


  14 in total

1.  Short-Listing the Program Choice for Perimetry in Neurological Conditions (PoPiN) Using Consensus Methods.

Authors:  Lauren Hepworth; Fiona Rowe
Journal:  Br Ir Orthopt J       Date:  2019-11-11

2.  Detailed Vision Screening Results from a Cohort of Individuals with Aphasia.

Authors:  Kimberly G Smith; Ankita M Bhutada
Journal:  Aphasiology       Date:  2019-12-19       Impact factor: 2.773

Review 3.  Eyes and stroke: the visual aspects of cerebrovascular disease.

Authors:  John H Pula; Carlen A Yuen
Journal:  Stroke Vasc Neurol       Date:  2017-07-06

4.  Visual Impairment Screening Assessment (VISA) tool: pilot validation.

Authors:  Fiona J Rowe; Lauren R Hepworth; Kerry L Hanna; Claire Howard
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2018-03-06       Impact factor: 2.692

5.  Stroke Survivor and Caregiver Perspectives on Post-Stroke Visual Concerns and Long-Term Consequences.

Authors:  Theresa M Smith; Monique R Pappadis; Shilpa Krishnan; Timothy A Reistetter
Journal:  Behav Neurol       Date:  2018-10-04       Impact factor: 3.342

Review 6.  Vision Evaluation Tools for Adults With Acquired Brain Injury: A Scoping Review.

Authors:  Camille Dubé; Yu Jin; Brienne G Powers; Ginny Li; Amélie Labelle; Meghan S Rivers; Ivy M Gumboc; André E Bussières
Journal:  Can J Occup Ther       Date:  2021-10-18       Impact factor: 1.614

7.  Barriers and facilitators to the implementation of a structured visual assessment after stroke in municipal health care services.

Authors:  Torgeir S Mathisen; Grethe Eilertsen; Heidi Ormstad; Helle K Falkenberg
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2021-05-24       Impact factor: 2.655

8.  Development of core outcome sets for vision screening and assessment in stroke: a Delphi and consensus study.

Authors:  Fiona J Rowe; Lauren R Hepworth; Jamie J Kirkham
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2019-09-08       Impact factor: 2.692

9.  Vision Screening Assessment (VISA) tool: diagnostic accuracy validation of a novel screening tool in detecting visual impairment among stroke survivors.

Authors:  Fiona J Rowe; Lauren Hepworth; Claire Howard; Alison Bruce; Victoria Smerdon; Terry Payne; Phil Jimmieson; Girvan Burnside
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2020-06-11       Impact factor: 2.692

10.  Independence in Daily Activities after Stroke among Occupational Therapy Patients and Its Relationship with Unilateral Neglect.

Authors:  Iván De-Rosende-Celeiro; Alba Rey-Villamayor; Isabel Francisco-de-Miguel; Adriana Ávila-Álvarez
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2021-07-15       Impact factor: 3.390

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.