ReviewCurrent neurology and neuroscience reports2015
Update in Aphasia Research.
Review in Current neurology and neuroscience reports, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Assessment of the quality and content of clinical practice guidelines for post-stroke rehabilitation of aphasia.Medicine · 2019Pooled it
- Development and application of a Chinese Version of the Language Screening Test (CLAST) in post-stroke patients.Medicine · 2020Article
- Constraint-induced aphasia therapy for patients with aphasia: A systematic review.International journal of nursing sciences · 2020Review
- Transcranial direct current stimulation in post stroke aphasia and primary progressive aphasia: Current knowledge and future clinical applications.NeuroRehabilitation · 2016Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
The sequelae of post-stroke aphasia are considerable, with implications at the societal and personal levels. An understanding of the mechanisms of recovery of cognitive and language processes after stroke and the factors associated with increased risk of post-stroke language and cognitive deficits is vital in providing optimal care of individuals with aphasia and in counseling to their families and caregivers. Advances in neuroimaging facilitate the identification of dysfunctional or damaged brain tissue responsible for these cognitive/language deficits and contribute insights regarding the functional neuroanatomy of language. Evidence-based person-centered behavioral therapy remains the mainstay for rehabilitation of aphasia, although emerging evidence shows that neuromodulation is a promising adjunct to traditional therapy. These topics are discussed in this review, illustrating with recent studies from the Stroke Cognitive Outcomes and REcovery (SCORE) lab.
Indexed as
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.