ArticleAphasiology2014
Psycholinguistics of Aphasia Pharmacotherapy: Asking the Right Questions.
Article in Aphasiology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- Supporting Post-Stroke Language and Cognition with Pharmacotherapy: Tools for Each Phase of Care.Current neurology and neuroscience reports · 2023Review
- Spectrum of neuropsychiatric symptoms in chronic post-stroke aphasia.World journal of psychiatry · 2022Article
- Better language through chemistry: Augmenting speech-language therapy with pharmacotherapy in the treatment of aphasia.Handbook of clinical neurology · 2022Review
- From Broca and Wernicke to the Neuromodulation Era: Insights of Brain Language Networks for Neurorehabilitation.Behavioural neurology · 2019Review
- Review
- Recent advances in the treatment of post-stroke aphasia.Neural regeneration research · 2014Article
- Expert Group Meeting on Aphasia: A Report.Annals of Indian Academy of NeurologyReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAmong the obstacles to demonstrating efficacy of pharmacological intervention for aphasia is quantifying patients' responses to treatment in a statistically valid and reliable manner. In many of the review papers on this topic (e.g., Berthier et al., 2011; de Boissezon, Peran, de Boysson, & Démonet, 2007; Small & Llano, 2009), detailed discussions of various methodological problems are highlighted, with some suggestions on how these shortcomings should be addressed. Given this deep understanding of caveats associated with the experimental design of aphasia pharmacotherapy studies (e.g., Berthier et al., 2011), investigations continue to produce inconsistent results.
aimIn this review paper we suggest that inclusion of theory-driven linguistic measures in aphasia pharmacotherapy studies would add an important step toward elucidating precise patterns of improvement in language performance resulting from pharmacotherapeutic intervention. MAIN CONTRIBUTION: We provide a brief review of the clinical approaches currently used in pharmacotherapy studies of aphasia, which often lack psycholinguistic grounding. We then present ways in which psycholinguistic models can complement this approach, offering a rationale for task selection, and as a result, lead to a better understanding of treatment effects. We then follow with an example of how such an integrative approach can be implemented in studies targeting stress reduction in people with aphasia, via beta-blocking agents, as a means to augment language performance, using the psycholinguistic framework of "linguistic anxiety" outlined in Cahana-Amitay et al, 2011 as our guideline.
conclusionWe conclude that the incorporation of psycholinguistic models into aphasia pharmacotherapy studies can increase the resolution with which we can identify functional changes.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.