TY - JOUR T1 - Visuospatial neglect: Recovery & Functional outcome after 6 months JF - medRxiv DO - 10.1101/2021.03.29.21254555 SP - 2021.03.29.21254555 AU - Margaret Jane Moore AU - Kathleen Vancleef AU - M. Jane Riddoch AU - Celine R Gillebert AU - Nele Demeyere Y1 - 2021/01/01 UR - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/04/04/2021.03.29.21254555.abstract N2 - Background/Objective This study aims to investigate how complex visuospatial neglect behavioural phenotypes predict long-term outcomes, both in terms of neglect recovery and broader functional outcomes.Methods This study presents a secondary cohort study of acute and 6 month follow up data from 400 stroke survivors who completed the Oxford Cognitive Screen’s Cancellation Task. At follow-up, patients also completed the Stroke Impact Scale questionnaire. These data were analysed to identify whether any specific combination of neglect symptoms is more likely to result in long-lasting neglect or higher levels of functional impairment, therefore warranting more targeted rehabilitation.Results Overall, 98/142(69%) neglect cases recovered by follow-up and there was no significant difference in the persistence of egocentric/allocentric (X2(1)=0.66, p=0.418) or left/right neglect (X2(2)=0.781, p= 0.677). Egocentric neglect was found to follow a proportional recovery pattern with all patients demonstrating a similar level of improvement over time. Conversely, allocentric neglect followed a non-proportional recovery pattern with chronic neglect patients exhibiting a slower rate of improvement than those who recovered. A multiple regression analysis revealed that the initial severity of acute allocentric, but not egocentric, neglect impairment acted as a significant predictor of poor long-term functional outcomes (F(9,383)=3.96, p<0.001, R2=0.066).Conclusions Our findings call for systematic neuropsychological assessment of both egocentric and allocentric neglect following stroke, as the occurrence and severity of these conditions may help predict recovery outcomes.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThis work was funded by Stroke Association UK awards to ND (TSA2015_LECT02; TSA 2011/02), MJM (SA PGF 18\100031), KV (TSA PDF 2017/03), the Wellcome Trust award to CRG (101253/A/13/Z) and was supported by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Oxford Biomedical Research Centre (BRC) based at Oxford University Hospitals NHS Trust.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:These study protocols were reviewed and approved by the National Research Ethics Committee (UK) (References: 11/WM/0299, 14/LO/0648, and 12/WM/00335 respectively)All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesAll data collected in this investigation has been made openly available on the Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/wm8v3/). https://osf.io/wm8v3/ ER -