Champod Anne Sophie, Frank Rachel C, Taylor Kristina, Eskes Gail A
a Department of Psychology , Acadia University , Wolfville , Canada.
b Department of Psychiatry , Dalhousie University , Halifax , Canada.
Neuropsychol Rehabil. 2018 Jun;28(4):491-514. doi: 10.1080/09602011.2016.1182032. Epub 2016 May 16.
Studies that have investigated prism adaptation (PA) effects on symptoms of visuospatial neglect have primarily used neuropsychological tests as outcome measures. An important question that remains to be answered is whether PA effects translate into improvements in patients' daily life activities. In the present review, we examined systematically the evidence for the effect of PA treatment on daily life activities in patients with neglect. Two authors independently assessed the methodological quality of 25 intervention and 1 follow-up studies using validated scales. PA effects were evaluated for reading/writing, activities of daily living (ADL) direct tests, ADL questionnaires, and navigation tests. Studies were evaluated as being of excellent (n = 1), good (n = 12), fair (n = 10), or poor (n = 3) quality. Among the 26 articles, a total of 32 measurements showed significant PA effects (one measurement from a study of excellent quality, 17 from studies of good quality, 10 from studies of fair quality, four from studies of poor quality), whereas non-significant effects were found in 15 measurements (two from a study of excellent quality, three from studies of good quality, eight from studies of fair quality, two from studies of poor quality). There is some evidence suggesting that PA can improve daily functioning, particularly as measured by reading/writing and ADL direct tests. The impact of several variables on PA effects should be investigated further including sample heterogeneity and time since injury.
研究棱镜适应（PA）对视空间忽视症状影响的研究主要将神经心理学测试用作结果指标。一个有待回答的重要问题是，PA的效果是否能转化为患者日常生活活动的改善。在本综述中，我们系统地考察了PA治疗对忽视患者日常生活活动影响的证据。两位作者使用经过验证的量表独立评估了25项干预研究和1项随访研究的方法学质量。对阅读/书写、日常生活活动（ADL）直接测试、ADL问卷和导航测试评估了PA的效果。研究被评估为质量优秀（n = 1）、良好（n = 12）、中等（n = 10）或差（n = 3）。在这26篇文章中，共有32项测量显示出显著的PA效果（1项来自质量优秀研究的测量、17项来自质量良好研究的测量、10项来自质量中等研究的测量、4项来自质量差研究的测量），而在15项测量中发现无显著效果（2项来自质量优秀研究的测量、3项来自质量良好研究的测量、8项来自质量中等研究的测量、2项来自质量差研究的测量）。有一些证据表明，PA可以改善日常功能，尤其是通过阅读/书写和ADL直接测试来衡量时。几个变量对PA效果的影响应进一步研究，包括样本异质性和受伤后的时间。
