Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26137883›Full record

ReviewBMJ open2015

Development and validation of Australian aphasia rehabilitation best practice statements using the RAND/UCLA appropriateness method.

Emma Power, Emma Thomas, Linda Worrall, Miranda Rose, Leanne Togher, Lyndsey Nickels, Deborah Hersh, Erin Godecke, Robyn O'Halloran, Sue Lamont and 2 more

Abstract readReviewValidation Study
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. An updated systematic review of stroke clinical practice guidelines to inform aphasia management.International journal of stroke : official journal of the International Stroke Society · 2023
    Pooled it
  2. Study on Language Rehabilitation for Aphasia.Chinese medical journal · 2017
    Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. 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 · 2024
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Assessment of language impairment and function.Handbook of clinical neurology · 2022
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
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

12 authors.

Emma PowerSpeech Pathology, Faculty of Health Sciences, The University of Sydney, Lidcombe, New South Wales, Australia Centre for Clinical Research Excellence in Aphasia Rehabilitation.
Emma ThomasCentre for Clinical Research Excellence in Aphasia Rehabilitation School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, the University of Queensland, St Lucia, Queensland, Australia.
Linda WorrallCentre for Clinical Research Excellence in Aphasia Rehabilitation School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, the University of Queensland, St Lucia, Queensland, Australia.
Miranda RoseCentre for Clinical Research Excellence in Aphasia Rehabilitation Department of Human Communication Sciences, School of Allied Health, La Trobe University, Bundoora, Victoria, Australia.
Leanne TogherSpeech Pathology, Faculty of Health Sciences, The University of Sydney, Lidcombe, New South Wales, Australia Centre for Clinical Research Excellence in Aphasia Rehabilitation.
Lyndsey NickelsCentre for Clinical Research Excellence in Aphasia Rehabilitation Department of Cognitive Science, ARC Centre of Excellence in Cognition and its Disorders, Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Deborah HershCentre for Clinical Research Excellence in Aphasia Rehabilitation Speech Pathology, School of Psychology and Social Science, Edith Cowan University, Perth, Western Australia, Australia.
Erin GodeckeCentre for Clinical Research Excellence in Aphasia Rehabilitation Speech Pathology, School of Psychology and Social Science, Edith Cowan University, Perth, Western Australia, Australia.
Robyn O'HalloranCentre for Clinical Research Excellence in Aphasia Rehabilitation Department of Human Communication Sciences, School of Allied Health, La Trobe University, Bundoora, Victoria, Australia.
Sue LamontDepartment of Speech Pathology, Monash Health, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Claire O'ConnorNSW Agency for Clinical Innovation, Chatswood, New South Wales, Australia.
Kim ClarkeSpeech Pathology, Country Health SA Local Health Network, Strathalbyn, South Australia, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

AphasiaAustraliaDelphi TechniqueEvidence-Based PracticeHumansPractice Guidelines as TopicSpeech-Language Pathologyaphasiaknowledge translationqualityrehabilitation

Identifiers

PMID26137883
PMCPMC4499686

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.