Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33032962›Full record

ArticleZeitschrift fur Evidenz, Fortbildung und Qualitat im Gesundheitswesen2020

[Scoping review of the effectiveness of screen-to-screen-therapy compared to face-to-face-therapy on naming performance for patients with aphasia].

Lara Cordes, Svetla Loukanova, Johanna Forstner

Open access · bronzeAbstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Zeitschrift fur Evidenz, Fortbildung und Qualitat im Gesundheitswesen, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 39% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. COVID-19 and Aphasia.Current neurology and neuroscience reports · 2021
    Review
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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Lara CordesAbteilung Allgemeinmedizin und Versorgungsforschung, Universitätsklinikum Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Deutschland.
Svetla LoukanovaAbteilung Allgemeinmedizin und Versorgungsforschung, Universitätsklinikum Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Deutschland.
Johanna ForstnerAbteilung Allgemeinmedizin und Versorgungsforschung, Universitätsklinikum Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Deutschland. Electronic address: johanna.forstner@med.uni-heidelberg.de.
Heidelberg University · DEUniversity Hospital Heidelberg · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionAbout 35,000 people in Germany suffered from stroke-related aphasia in 2019. One of the most frequent manifestations of aphasia are word finding disorders. In times of the COVID-19 pandemic, the temporary approval of video therapy enables the maintenance of speech therapy treatment. This leads to the necessity to investigate the effectiveness of screen-to-screen therapy via a video conferencing system compared to conventional face-to-face therapy of adult aphasia patients.

methodsFor this scoping review, a literature search in the databases Cochrane, Pubmed and Web of Science was conducted for the period February 2010 to 2020. We included German- and English-language studies comparing the effectiveness of a classic face-to-face therapy with a screen-to-screen therapy of adults with aphasia. The studies were selected using the PRISMA flowchart.

resultsA total of five studies were identified. Both face-to-face therapy and screen-to-screen therapy showed significant improvements in naming performance in an Italian crossover study, a Canadian randomized study and a quasi-randomized study conducted in the UK. No improvements were found for both forms of intervention in an Israeli crossover study. In a German comparative study, significant improvements in naming performance were found for face-to-face therapy, but the results did not differ significantly from the screen-to-screen therapy intervention group. DISCUSSION: In all included studies, screen-to-screen therapy and face-to-face therapy had a comparable effectiveness on naming performance. The results demonstrate the feasibility of a screen-to-screen therapy under everyday conditions. However, it is possible that this form of therapy cannot always be implemented. Barriers to screen-to-screen therapy can be the use of technologies and restrictions in the visual field due to a neglect. One limitation of the scoping review was that only the naming performance was considered as an outcome, another was the small number of studies included.

conclusionFor many patients screen-to-screen therapy is currently the only possibility to receive speech therapy treatment. Therefore it is a positive aspect that screen-to-screen therapy is as effective as face-to-face therapy. Screen-to-screen therapy can provide expanded access to health care and professional expertise in health services. In this way, speech therapy care during the COVID-19 pandemic can be largely maintained. Further research is needed on evidence-based treatment methods and user-oriented apps for video therapy.

Indexed as

AphasiaCoronavirus InfectionsPandemicsPneumonia, ViralStrokeTelemedicineVideoconferencingAdultBetacoronavirusCanadaCOVID-19Cross-Over StudiesGermanyHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicSARS-CoV-2AphasiaAphasieEfficacyReviewSpeech therapySprachtherapieTelemedicineTelemedizinVideo consultationVideotherapieWirksamkeit

Identifiers

PMID33032962
PMCPMC7535801
OpenAlexW3091976147

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.