International multidisciplinary consensus recommendations for the screening and assessment of post-stroke spatial neglect using an online Delphi method
- Journal
- Clinical rehabilitation (Q1)
- Published
- 3 August 2026
- Study design
- Practice guideline / consensus
- Evidence level
- Level 1, High (CEBM 1c)
- Authors
- Lindy J Williams, Timothy J Rich, Peii Chen, Gail Eskes, Jocelyn Kernot, Susan Hillier, et al.
- PMID
- 42545058
- DOI
- 10.1177/02692155261465653
Why clinicians should know about it
- Picked for Rehabilitation (top studies of the week, 9 August 2026).
Abstract
DesignOnline Delphi method with five survey rounds and one virtual meeting to achieve international multidisciplinary recommendations for the screening and assessment of spatial neglect in clinical practice.Participants175 experts with ≥5 publications in spatial neglect were invited.Main MeasuresSurveys were developed from a published review. Working definitions were provided for clarity: screening (as applicable for all stroke survivors) and assessment (conducted if positive screen). Participants rated the importance of screening and assessment of each spatial neglect subtype, and preferences for measurement tools. Consensus was pre-defined as ≥75% agreement. Participants could also provide explanatory free text responses. After each round, participants received summarised results to inform subsequent rounds. A final meeting focused on assessment items without consensus.Results66 experts participated in Round 1, representing 15 countries and six disciplines; with 29 in the final 5th Round and nine attended the meeting. There was consensus that: all survivors should be screened for spatial neglect within 2 weeks post stroke; and those screening positive should have a comprehensive assessment of all subtypes of spatial neglect. Several tools reached consensus with shortlists for some subtypes.ConclusionThis work presents international, multidisciplinary recommendations on screening and assessment, developed by experts from 15 countries and six disciplines; however, attrition across rounds and a small consensus meeting (n = 9) may limit the representativeness of some tool-specific decisions. Implementing these findings may improve the detection of spatial neglect in clinical practice. Further research exploring psychometrics (validity, reliability, sensitivity, specificity) of shortlisted tools will support a full clinical protocol.
Abstract as published, via PubMed.
For healthcare professionals. The summary is generated by AI from the published abstract, and the evidence level is assigned automatically from the study design on the Oxford CEBM hierarchy. Neither is medical advice. Read the full paper before changing practice.