SynthesisChinese medical journal2017
Study on Language Rehabilitation for Aphasia.
Synthesis in Chinese medical journal, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Beyond the cerebral cortex: cerebellar language-related subregions contributions to fluency in post-stroke aphasia.NeuroImage. Clinical · 2026Article
- What Impacts What: Clinicians' Perspectives of Causality in Aphasia Rehabilitation.American journal of speech-language pathology · 2024Article
- Transcranial Direct-Current Stimulation as an Adjunct to Verb Network Strengthening Treatment in Post-stroke Chronic Aphasia: A Double-Blinded Randomized Feasibility Study.Frontiers in neurology · 2022Article
- Research trends of the neuroimaging in aphasia: A bibliometric analysis and visualization analysis from 2004 to 2021.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2022Review
- Article
- Cognitive impact of lower-grade gliomas and strategies for rehabilitation.Neuro-oncology practice · 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
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe aim is to update our clinical recommendations for evidence-based language rehabilitation of people with aphasia, based on a systematic review of the literature from 1999 to 2015. DATA SOURCES: Articles referred to in this systematic review of the Medline and PubMed published in English language literatures were from 1998 to 2015. The terms used in the literature searches were aphasia and evidenced-based. STUDY SELECTION: The task force initially identified citations for 51 published articles. Of the 51 articles, 44 studies were selected after further detailed review. Six articles, which were not written in English, and one study related to laryngectomy rehabilitation interventions, were excluded from the study. This study referred to all the important and English literature in full.
resultsAphasia is the linguistic disability, which usually results from injuries to the dominant hemisphere of the brain. The rehabilitation of aphasia is until in the process of being debated and researched. Evidence-based medicine (EBM), EBM based on the clinical evidence, promotes the practice of combining the clinicians' first-hand experience and the existing objective and scientific evidence encouraging making decisions based on both empirical evidence and the scientific evidence. Currently, EBM is being gradually implemented in the clinical practice as the aim of the development of modern medicine.
conclusionsAt present, the research for the aphasia rehabilitation mainly focuses on the cognitive language rehabilitation and the intensive treatment and the precise treatment, etc. There is now sufficient information to support evidence-based protocols and implement empirically-supported treatments for linguistic disability after traumatic brain injury and stroke, which can be used to develop linguistic rehabilitation guidelines for patients with aphasia.
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.