ReviewBMJ open2015
Development and validation of Australian aphasia rehabilitation best practice statements using the RAND/UCLA appropriateness method.
Review in BMJ open, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- An updated systematic review of stroke clinical practice guidelines to inform aphasia management.International journal of stroke : official journal of the International Stroke Society · 2023Pooled it
- Study on Language Rehabilitation for Aphasia.Chinese medical journal · 2017Pooled it
- Trial
- A randomised trial of social support group intervention for people with aphasia: A Novel application of virtual reality.PloS one · 2020Trial
- The development and application of performance indicators to assess veterinarians' adherence to the clinical practice Streptococcus suis in weaned pigs guideline.BMC veterinary research · 2025Article
- Establishing Quality Indicators and Implementation Priorities for Post-Stroke Aphasia Services Through End-User Involvement.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2024Article
- ACcurate COnsensus Reporting Document (ACCORD) explanation and elaboration: Guidance and examples to support reporting consensus methods.PLoS medicine · 2024Article
- Using consensus methods to prioritize modifiable risk factors for development of manifestations of frailty in hospitalized older adults.Nursing open · 2023Article
- Clinical practice guideline adaptation for risk-based caries management in 18-55 year-old Iranian adults.BMC oral health · 2023Article
- Assessment of language impairment and function.Handbook of clinical neurology · 2022Review
- Article
- Efficacy of online communication partner training package for student healthcare professionals.International journal of language & communication disordersArticle
- The core components of clinical planning for Comprehensive, High-dose Aphasia Treatment (CHAT): A task analysis.International journal of language & communication disordersArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo develop and validate a national set of best practice statements for use in post-stroke aphasia rehabilitation.
designLiterature review and statement validation using the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method (RAM).
participantsA national Community of Practice of over 250 speech pathologists, researchers, consumers and policymakers developed a framework consisting of eight areas of care in aphasia rehabilitation. This framework provided the structure for the development of a care pathway containing aphasia rehabilitation best practice statements. Nine speech pathologists with expertise in aphasia rehabilitation participated in two rounds of RAND/UCLA appropriateness ratings of the statements. Panellists consisted of researchers, service managers, clinicians and policymakers.
main outcome measuresStatements that achieved a high level of agreement and an overall median score of 7-9 on a nine-point scale were rated as 'appropriate'.
results74 best practice statements were extracted from the literature and rated across eight areas of care (eg, receiving the right referrals, providing intervention). At the end of Round 1, 71 of the 74 statements were rated as appropriate, no statements were rated as inappropriate, and three statements were rated as uncertain. All 74 statements were then rated again in the face-to-face second round. 16 statements were added through splitting existing items or adding new statements. Seven statements were deleted leaving 83 statements. Agreement was reached for 82 of the final 83 statements.
conclusionsThis national set of 82 best practice statements across eight care areas for the rehabilitation of people with aphasia is the first to be validated by an expert panel. These statements form a crucial component of the Australian Aphasia Rehabilitation Pathway (AARP) (http://www.aphasiapathway.com.au) and provide the basis for more consistent implementation of evidence-based practice in stroke rehabilitation.
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.