NIBS vs control: Neglect outcomes: immediate effects
It is very uncertain whether NIBS changes neglect outcomes: immediate effects compared with any control (very low certainty).
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
NIBS vs any control Neglect outcomes: immediate effects · spatial neglect or inattention following stroke and other adult‐acquired non‐progressive brain injury It is very uncertain whether NIBS changes neglect outcomes: immediate effects compared with any control (very low certainty). Non‐pharmacological interventions for spatial neglect or inattention following stroke and other… (2021) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | SMD 0.75 | 10 studies · 244 participants | Very low |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Non‐pharmacological interventions for spatial neglect or inattention following stroke and other non‐progressive brain injury 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | Not reported | list not extracted yet | Not assessed |
Studies behind the findings
None of these reviews ties its included studies to this outcome in the data here. Cochrane reviews and reviews with headline outcomes only do not list their studies yet.
How reviews are matched to this question
Reviews word the same question differently. Four decision models (TypeSafe's Jev, Liquid AI's d1-ultra, SubQ Snap and Baseten's Elephant) judged each wording of the population, intervention, comparator and outcome against the others; two wordings count as the same when at least three of them agree and none clearly disagrees, and findings count as this question only when all four elements match. Timing, setting and subgroup never split a question: they are shown on each finding.