Evidence map›Paper›PMID 17151940›Full record

ReviewNeuropsychology review2006

Evaluating single-subject treatment research: lessons learned from the aphasia literature.

Pélagie M Beeson, Randall R Robey

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Neuropsychology review, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 140 papers, 12 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
140citing papers in PubMed, 12 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

140 citing papers in PubMed, 12 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Effects of exercise during active surveillance for prostate cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2024
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Guideline
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Benchmarks of Significant Change After Aphasia Rehabilitation.Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation · 2019
    Pooled it
  7. Study on Language Rehabilitation for Aphasia.Chinese medical journal · 2017
    Pooled it
  8. Sound Production Treatment: Synthesis and Quantification of Outcomes.American journal of speech-language pathology · 2015
    Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Exploring Input Parameters in an Expressive Vocabulary Treatment With Late Talkers.Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR · 2020
    Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Direction of attentional focus in biofeedback treatment for /r/ misarticulation.International journal of language & communication disorders · 2016
    Trial
  20. Masked Repetition Priming in Treatment of Anomia: A Phase 2 Study.American journal of speech-language pathology · 2015
    Trial

80 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Pélagie M BeesonDepartment of Speech, Language, and Hearing Sciences, The University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721-0071, USA. pelagie@u.arizona.edu
Randall R Robey

Funding

Developing Evidence-Based Treatment for AgraphiaR01DC007646 · NIDCD · UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA · PI BEESON, PELAGIE M · 2005 to 2015
$3.4M
Cognitive Mechanisms and Neural Substrates of Written Language ProcessingR01DC008286 · NIDCD · UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA · PI RAPCSAK, STEVEN Z · 2006 to 2008
$940k
NIDCD NIH HHS R01 DC007646NIDCD NIH HHS R01DC007646NIDCD NIH HHS R01 DC008286NIDCD NIH HHS R01DC008286
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The mandate for evidence-based practice has prompted careful consideration of the weight of the scientific evidence regarding the therapeutic value of various clinical treatments. In the field of aphasia, a large number of single-subject research studies have been conducted, providing clinical outcome data that are potentially useful for clinicians and researchers; however, it has been difficult to discern the relative potency of these treatments in a standardized manner. In this paper we describe an approach to quantify treatment outcomes for single-subject research studies using effect sizes. These values provide a means to compare treatment outcomes within and between individuals, as well as to compare the relative strength of various treatments. Effect sizes also can be aggregated in order to conduct meta-analyses of specific treatment approaches. Consideration is given to optimizing research designs and providing adequate data so that the value of treatment research is maximized.

Indexed as

Patient SelectionAphasiaClinical Trials as TopicHumansResearch DesignTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID17151940
PMCPMC2366174

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.