SynthesisPloS one2018
Diagnosis of aphasia in stroke populations: A systematic review of language tests.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 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
35 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 106 citations in OpenAlex.
- [Delirium in stroke: systematic review and meta-analysis].Medizinische Klinik, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin · 2024Pooled it
- Sex differences in post-stroke aphasia rates are caused by age. A meta-analysis and database query.PloS one · 2018Pooled it
- How object naming dissociates from repetition and comprehension impairments when post stroke aphasia is less severe.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Altered Dynamic Functional Network Connectivity in Post-Stroke Aphasia.Annals of clinical and translational neurology · 2026Article
- Development and Psychometric Validation of the Cyprus Aphasia Screening Test (CAST).Brain sciences · 2025Article
- Comment on Panuccio et al. Quality of Assessment Tools for Aphasia: A Systematic Review.Brain sciences · 2025Article
- Clinical feasibility and cortical effects of synchronous mirror therapy on speech-language and upper limb motor function after stroke.BMC neurology · 2025Article
- Language mapping during awake brain surgery in a deaf patient with a brain tumor: illustrative case.Journal of neurosurgery. Case lessons · 2025Article
- Neural tracking of natural speech: an effective marker for post-stroke aphasia.Brain communications · 2025Article
- Current status of Tele-speech language therapy by type and support for patients with post-stroke aphasia: A scoping review.PloS one · 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
- Exploring neural tracking of acoustic and linguistic speech representations in individuals with post-stroke aphasia.Human brain mapping · 2024Article
- Evaluating circumlocution in naming as a predictor of communicative informativeness and efficiency in discourse.Aphasiology · 2024Article
- AI-assisted assessment and treatment of aphasia: a review.Frontiers in public health · 2024Review
- Defining aphasia: Content analysis of six aphasia diagnostic batteries.Cortex; a journal devoted to the study of the nervous system and behavior · 2023Article
- Acoustic and phonemic processing are impaired in individuals with aphasia.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Accuracy of rating scales for evaluating aphasic patients' psychological aspects and language function: A scoping review protocol.PloS one · 2023Article
- Automated Tractography for the Assessment of Aphasia in Acute Care Stroke Rehabilitation: A Case Series.Progress in rehabilitation medicine · 2023Article
- Blood Th17 cells and IL-17A as candidate biomarkers estimating the progression of cognitive impairment in stroke patients.Journal of clinical laboratory analysis · 2022Article
- Assessment of language impairment and function.Handbook of clinical neurology · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background and purposeAccurate aphasia diagnosis is important in stroke care. A wide range of language tests are available and include informal assessments, tests developed by healthcare institutions and commercially published tests available for purchase in pre-packaged kits. The psychometrics of these tests are often reported online or within the purchased test manuals, not the peer-reviewed literature, therefore the diagnostic capabilities of these measures have not been systematically evaluated. This review aimed to identify both commercial and non-commercial language tests and tests used in stroke care and to examine the diagnostic capabilities of all identified measures in diagnosing aphasia in stroke populations.
methodsLanguage tests were identified through a systematic search of 161 publisher databases, professional and resource websites and language tests reported to be used in stroke care. Two independent reviewers evaluated test manuals or associated resources for cohort or cross-sectional studies reporting the tests' diagnostic capabilities (sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratios or diagnostic odds ratios) in differentiating aphasic and non-aphasic stroke populations.
resultsFifty-six tests met the study eligibility criteria. Six "non-specialist" brief screening tests reported sensitivity and specificity information, however none of these measures reported to meet the specific diagnostic needs of speech pathologists. The 50 remaining measures either did not report validity data (n = 7); did not compare patient test performance with a comparison group (n = 17); included non-stroke participants within their samples (n = 23) or did not compare stroke patient performance against a language reference standard (n = 3). Diagnostic sensitivity analysis was completed for six speech pathology measures (WAB, PICA, CADL-2, ASHA-FACS, Adult FAVRES and EFA-4), however all studies compared aphasic performance with that of non-stroke healthy controls and were consequently excluded from the review.
conclusionsNo speech pathology test was found which reported diagnostic data for identifying aphasia in stroke populations. A diagnostically validated post-stroke aphasia test is needed.
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.