ArticleFrontiers in psychology2022
Comparison of three cognitive assessment methods in post-stroke aphasia patients.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Sex-related differences in the applicability and performance of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment in the acute phase of stroke.European stroke journal · 2026Article
- Identification and validation of an interpretable EEG-based machine learning model for the diagnosis of post-stroke cognitive impairment.Frontiers in aging neuroscience · 2025Article
- Effects of low-frequency rTMS combined with speech and language therapy on Broca's aphasia in subacute stroke patients.Frontiers in neurology · 2024Article
- Clinical study of melodic intonation therapy combined with transcranial direct current stimulation for post-stroke aphasia: a single-blind, randomized controlled trial.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The cognitive level of post-stroke aphasia (PSA) patients is generally lower than non-aphasia patients, and cognitive impairment (CI) affects the outcome of stroke. However, for different types of PSA, what kind of cognitive assessment methods to choose is not completely clear. We investigated the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), and the Non-language-based Cognitive Assessment (NLCA) to observe the evaluation effect of CI in patients with fluent aphasia (FA) and non-fluent aphasia (NFA). Methods: 92 stroke patients were included in this study. Demographic and clinical data of the stroke group were documented. The language and cognition were evaluated by Western Aphasia Battery (WAB), MoCA, MMSE, and NLCA. PSA were divided into FA and NFA according to the Chinese aphasia fluency characteristic scale. Pearson's product-moment correlation coefficient test and multiple linear regression analysis were performed to explore the relationship between the sub-items of WAB and cognitive scores. The classification rate of CI was tested by Pearson's Chi-square test or Fisher's exact test. Results: The scores of aphasia quotient (AQ), MoCA, MMSE, and NLCA in NFA were lower than FA. AQ was positively correlated with MoCA, MMSE, and NLCA scores. Stepwise multiple linear regression analysis suggested that naming explained 70.7% of variance of MoCA and 79.9% of variance of MMSE; comprehension explained 46.7% of variance of NLCA. In the same type of PSA, there was no significant difference in the classification rate. The classification rate of CI in NFA by MoCA and MMSE was higher than that in FA. There was no significant difference in the classification rate of CI between FA and NFA by NLCA. Conclusion: MoCA, MMSE, and NLCA can be applied in FA. NLCA is recommended for NFA.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.