Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34567396›Full record

ArticleThe Neurohospitalist2021

Recognizing Aphemia and How to Differentiate From Aphasia in the Era of Telemedicine.

Brittany M Kasturiarachi, Balaji Krishnaiah

Abstract readCase Reports
In one paragraph

Article in The Neurohospitalist, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

2 authors.

Brittany M KasturiarachiDepartment of Neurology, University of Tennessee Health Sciences Center, Memphis, TN, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8580-4849
Balaji KrishnaiahDepartment of Neurology, University of Tennessee Health Sciences Center, Memphis, TN, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAphemia, or pure motor mutism, is a phenomenon that has been reported previously in the literature and typically is associated with small infarcts in the inferior dominant precentral gyrus, pars opercularis, or inferior perirolandic gyrus. Clinically, it is important to distinguish aphemia from aphasia syndromes. Telemedicine is becoming more prevalent and involving neurologists across the country. This is an important consideration when addressing aphemic patients as many mistakes can be made during a virtual exam clouding a patient's clinical picture. CASE PRESENTATION: Our patient is a 61-year-old female with a past medical history of hypertension, diabetes, and an old right frontoparietal stroke without any residual deficits. She presented after her family stated that she "quit speaking" for about seven hours. Initial neurological evaluation was done via telemedicine due to the COVID-19 pandemic and was pertinent for decreased consciousness, inability to answer either orientation question, a right facial droop, and aphasia. Later it was found that the patient exhibited a pure motor mutism rather than aphasia and had an MRI lesion in the left inferior precentral gyrus.

conclusionDifferentiating aphemia from aphasia is an important clinical skill for a neurologist to foster especially in the era of telemedicine. An intimate knowledge of the parts of a speech exam are vital in directing emergency staff during stroke evaluation. Additionally, distinguishing these clinical syndromes has implications with respect to prognosis and long-term rehabilitation.

Indexed as

aphasiaapraxiaclinical neurology examinationinfarctiontelemedicine

Identifiers

PMID34567396
PMCPMC8442164

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.