Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31024369›Full record

SynthesisFrontiers in psychology2019

What Influences Language Impairment in Bilingual Aphasia? A Meta-Analytic Review.

Ekaterina Kuzmina, Mira Goral, Monica Norvik, Brendan S Weekes

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Frontiers in psychology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 37 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
37citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
5.6field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
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

37 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 84 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Broca's biases in modern aphasiology.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2026
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Dynamic neuroplasticity of language networks: The intersection of bilingualism and epilepsy.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025
    Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. 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

4 authors at 3 institutions in 4 countries.

Ekaterina KuzminaFaculty of Humanities, Center for Multilingualism in Society Across the Lifespan, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
Mira GoralFaculty of Humanities, Center for Multilingualism in Society Across the Lifespan, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
Monica NorvikFaculty of Humanities, Center for Multilingualism in Society Across the Lifespan, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
Brendan S WeekesMelbourne Graduate School of Education, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
University of Oslo · NOCity University of New York · USVictorian Curriculum and Assessment Authority · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Patterns of language impairment in multilingual speakers with post-stroke aphasia are diverse: in some cases the language deficits are parallel, that is, all languages are impaired relatively equally, whereas in other cases deficits are differential, that is, one language is more impaired than the other(s). This diversity stems from the intricate structure of the multilingual language system, which is shaped by a complex interplay of influencing factors, such as age of language acquisition, frequency of language use, premorbid proficiency, and linguistic similarity between one's languages. Previous theoretical reviews and empirical studies shed some light on these factors, however no clear answers have been provided. The goals of this review were to provide a timely update on the increasing number of reported cases in the last decade and to offer a systematic analysis of the potentially influencing variables. One hundred and thirty cases from 65 studies were included in the present systematic review and effect sizes from 119 cases were used in the meta-analysis. Our analysis revealed better performance in L1 compared to L2 in the whole sample of bilingual speakers with post-stroke aphasia. However, the magnitude of this difference was influenced by whether L2 was learned early in childhood or later: those who learned L2 before 7 years of age showed comparable performance in both of their languages contrary to the bilinguals who learned L2 after 7 years of age and showed better performance in L1 compared to L2. These robust findings were moderated mildly by premorbid proficiency and frequency of use. Finally, linguistic similarity did not appear to influence the magnitude of the difference in performance between L1 and L2. Our findings from the early bilingual subgroup were in line with the previous reviews which included mostly balanced early bilinguals performing comparably in both languages. Our findings from the late bilingual subgroup stressed the primacy of L1 and the importance of age of L2 learning. In addition, the evidence from the present review provides support for theories emphasizing the role of premorbid proficiency and language use in language impairment patterns in bilingual aphasia.

Indexed as

AoAbilingual aphasialanguage uselinguistic similaritymeta-analysispremorbid proficiencystroke

Identifiers

PMID31024369
PMCPMC6460996
OpenAlexW2916482367

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.