Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35749406›Full record

ArticlePloS one2022

No evidence of impediment by three common classes of prescription drugs to post-stroke aphasia recovery in a retrospective longitudinal sample.

Melissa D Stockbridge, Zafer Keser, Lisa D Bunker, Argye E Hillis

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 45% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Reversing the Ruin: Rehabilitation, Recovery, and Restoration After Stroke.Current neurology and neuroscience reports · 2022
    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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Melissa D StockbridgeDepartment of Neurology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0001-9069-1236
Zafer KeserDepartment of Neurology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, United States of America.
Lisa D BunkerDepartment of Neurology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0001-9637-3204
Argye E HillisDepartment of Neurology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, United States of America.
Johns Hopkins University · USMayo Clinic · US

Funding

Neural Basis of Lexical Deficits in Hyperacute StrokeR01DC005375 · NIDCD · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI Argye E. Hillis · 2002 to 2026
$11.8M
Trans-cranial Direct Current Stimulation to Treat Aphasia: Phase II TrialU01DC011739 · NIDCD · UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA AT COLUMBIA · PI FRIDRIKSSON, JULIUS · 2012 to 2016
$4.4M
State of the Art 3T Research ScannerS10OD021648 · OD · HUGO W. MOSER RES INST KENNEDY KRIEGER · PI VAN ZIJL, PETER CM · 2016 to 2016
$2.0M
NIDCD NIH HHS R01 DC005375NIDCD NIH HHS U01 DC011739NIH HHS S10 OD021648
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A number of pharmaceuticals have been identified as potential adjuvants to speech language therapy following stroke, but it is also important to consider which pharmaceuticals may result in a less robust recovery. Here we examine whether post-stroke language recovery was meaningfully impeded by cholinergic, GABAergic, or dopaminergic medications patients received. Eighty participants with left hemisphere stroke were examined retrospectively to see whether the use of one of these three classes of medication prior to admission for acute stroke, during their inpatient stay, or at discharge was associated with differences in recovery on three common measures of language. While prescription of any of the candidate drugs was relatively uncommon, groups were very well matched for many common factors that impact performance. When age, education, and acute lesion volume were controlled, there were no significant differences in performance among those taking cholinergic, GABAergic, or dopaminergic medications and those who were not. Those who experienced a "good recovery" of language (≥10% improvement on any one language measure over time) had similar exposure to these drugs to those with a poor recovery. This work represents a first look at these drug classes with regard to their effects on the recovery of language after stroke and should not be interpreted as resolving all potential for concern, but these results do offer modest reassurance that these common classes of pharmacotherapy, when given for short periods in this population, do not appear to have marked deleterious effects on post-stroke recovery of language.

Indexed as

AphasiaPrescription DrugsStrokeCholinergic AgentsHumansRecovery of FunctionRetrospective StudiesCholinergic AgentsPrescription Drugs

Identifiers

PMID35749406
PMCPMC9231759
OpenAlexW4283386425

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.