SynthesisJournal of neurology2017
Screening tests for aphasia in patients with stroke: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Journal of neurology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 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
36 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 106 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Comment on Panuccio et al. Quality of Assessment Tools for Aphasia: A Systematic Review.Brain sciences · 2025Article
- Right hemisphere engagement in language abilities in older adults: indication of compensation rather than decline.Frontiers in aging · 2025Article
- Neural tracking of natural speech: an effective marker for post-stroke aphasia.Brain communications · 2025Article
- AI and Aphasia in the Digital Age: A Critical Review.Brain sciences · 2024Review
- Article
- The ScreeLing: Detecting Semantic, Phonological, and Syntactic Deficits in the Clinical Subtypes of Frontotemporal and Alzheimer's Dementia.Assessment · 2023Article
- Acoustic and phonemic processing are impaired in individuals with aphasia.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Article
- Psychometric Testing of the CEECCA Questionnaire to Assess Ability to Communicate among Individuals with Aphasia.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023Article
- A Tablet-Based Aphasia Assessment System "STELA": Feasibility and Validation Study.JMIR formative research · 2023Article
- The first aphasia screening test in Hungarian: A preliminary study on validity and diagnostic accuracy.PloS one · 2023Article
- Research hotspots and frontiers of post-stroke aphasia rehabilitation: a bibliometric study and visualization analysis.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2023Article
- The Severity-Calibrated Aphasia Naming Test.American journal of speech-language pathology · 2022Article
- Point-of-Care Testing Using a Neuropsychology Pocketcard Set: A Preliminary Validation Study.Brain sciences · 2022Article
- Assessment of language impairment and function.Handbook of clinical neurology · 2022Review
- The Screening Test for Aphasia and Dysarthria (STAD) for Patients with Neurological Communicative Disorders: A Large-Scale, Multicenter Validation Study in Japan.Folia phoniatrica et logopaedica : official organ of the International Association of Logopedics and Phoniatrics (IALP) · 2022Article
- Early white matter connectivity and plasticity in post stroke aphasia recovery.NeuroImage. Clinical · 2022Article
- Diagnosis and differential diagnosis flow diagram of Chinese post-stroke aphasia types and treatment of post-stroke aphasia.Aging medicine (Milton (N.S.W)) · 2021Review
- Novel Advances to Post-Stroke Aphasia Pharmacology and Rehabilitation.Journal of clinical medicine · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aphasia has a large impact on the quality of life and adds significantly to the costs of stroke care. Early recognition of aphasia in stroke patients is important for prognostication and well-timed treatment planning. We aimed to identify available screening tests for differentiating between aphasic and non-aphasic stroke patients, and to evaluate test accuracy, reliability, and feasibility. We searched PubMed, EMbase, Web of Science, and PsycINFO for published studies on screening tests aimed at assessing aphasia in stroke patients. The reference lists of the selected articles were scanned, and several experts were contacted to detect additional references. Of each screening test, we estimated the sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratio of a positive test, likelihood ratio of a negative test, and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and rated the degree of bias of the validation method. We included ten studies evaluating eight screening tests. There was a large variation across studies regarding sample size, patient characteristics, and reference tests used for validation. Many papers failed to report on the consecutiveness of patient inclusion, time between aphasia onset and administration of the screening test, and blinding. Of the three studies that were rated as having an intermediate or low risk of bias, the DOR was highest for the Language Screening Test and ScreeLing. Several screening tools for aphasia in stroke are available, but many tests have not been verified properly. Methodologically sound validation studies of aphasia screening tests are needed to determine their usefulness in clinical practice.
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.