Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33719515›Full record

SynthesisStroke2021

Predictors of Poststroke Aphasia Recovery: A Systematic Review-Informed Individual Participant Data Meta-Analysis.

REhabilitation and recovery of peopLE with Aphasia after StrokE (RELEASE) Collaborators

Open access · bronzeAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Stroke, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 41 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
41citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
7.1field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

41 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 88 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Guideline
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Narrative Discourse Predictors of Response to Naming Intervention in Aphasia.Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR · 2026
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Acute-Phase Machine Learning Prediction of 12-Month Aphasia and Discourse Recovery.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2026
    Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author at 20 institutions in 22 countries.

REhabilitation and recovery of peopLE with Aphasia after StrokE (RELEASE) Collaborators
Glasgow Caledonian University · GBThe University of Queensland · AUUniversity of Geneva · CHAnadolu University · TRBielefeld University · DECity, University of London · GBCodarts Rotterdam · NLCyprus University of Technology · CYEastern Kentucky University · USEdith Cowan University · AUHumboldt-Universität zu Berlin · DEJikei University School of Medicine · JPRadboud University Nijmegen · NLSeoul National University Bundang Hospital · KRTechnological Educational Institute of Western Greece · GRUniversity College London · GBUniversity of Central Florida · USUniversity of East Anglia · GBUniversity of Georgia · USUniversity of Lisbon · PT

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/M023672/1Wellcome Trust 205103/Z/16/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

background and purposeThe factors associated with recovery of language domains after stroke remain uncertain. We described recovery of overall-language-ability, auditory comprehension, naming, and functional-communication across participants' age, sex, and aphasia chronicity in a large, multilingual, international aphasia dataset.

methodsIndividual participant data meta-analysis of systematically sourced aphasia datasets described overall-language ability using the Western Aphasia Battery Aphasia-Quotient; auditory comprehension by Aachen Aphasia Test (AAT) Token Test; naming by Boston Naming Test and functional-communication by AAT Spontaneous-Speech Communication subscale. Multivariable analyses regressed absolute score-changes from baseline across language domains onto covariates identified a priori in randomized controlled trials and all study types. Change-from-baseline scores were presented as estimates of means and 95% CIs. Heterogeneity was described using relative variance. Risk of bias was considered at dataset and meta-analysis level.

resultsAssessments at baseline (median=43.6 weeks poststroke; interquartile range [4-165.1]) and first-follow-up (median=10 weeks from baseline; interquartile range [3-26]) were available for n=943 on overall-language ability, n=1056 on auditory comprehension, n=791 on naming and n=974 on functional-communication. Younger age (<55 years, +15.4 Western Aphasia Battery Aphasia-Quotient points [CI, 10.0-20.9], +6.1 correct on AAT Token Test [CI, 3.2-8.9]; +9.3 Boston Naming Test points [CI, 4.7-13.9]; +0.8 AAT Spontaneous-Speech Communication subscale points [CI, 0.5-1.0]) and enrollment <1 month post-onset (+19.1 Western Aphasia Battery Aphasia-Quotient points [CI, 13.9-24.4]; +5.3 correct on AAT Token Test [CI, 1.7-8.8]; +11.1 Boston Naming Test points [CI, 5.7-16.5]; and +1.1 AAT Spontaneous-Speech Communication subscale point [CI, 0.7-1.4]) conferred the greatest absolute change-from-baseline across each language domain. Improvements in language scores from baseline diminished with increasing age and aphasia chronicity. Data exhibited no significant statistical heterogeneity. Risk-of-bias was low to moderate-low.

conclusionsEarlier intervention for poststroke aphasia was crucial to maximize language recovery across a range of language domains, although recovery continued to be observed to a lesser extent beyond 6 months poststroke.

Indexed as

LanguageStroke RehabilitationAgedAge FactorsAphasiaAuditory PerceptionComprehensionFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNeuropsychological TestsSex FactorsStrokeaphasiacomprehensiondemographylanguagesurvivor

Identifiers

PMID33719515
PMCPMC8078126
OpenAlexW3135720314

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.