Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36583427›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of language & communication disorders

Measuring communication as a core outcome in aphasia trials: Results of the ROMA-2 international core outcome set development meeting.

Sarah J Wallace, Linda Worrall, Tanya A Rose, Reem S W Alyahya, Edna Babbitt, Suzanne Beeke, Carola de Beer, Arpita Bose, Audrey Bowen, Marian C Brady and 30 more

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of language & communication disorders. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
11.8field-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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 34 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Communication partner training for aged-care workers: A scoping review.International journal of language & communication disorders
    Article
  20. Article
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

40 authors at 20 institutions in 11 countries.

Sarah J WallaceSchool of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-0600-9343
Linda WorrallSchool of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.
Tanya A RoseSchool of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.
Reem S W AlyahyaCommunication and Swallowing Disorders Department, King Fahad Medical City, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Edna BabbittDepartment of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-8965-7994
Suzanne BeekeDeparment of Psychology and Language Sciences, University College London, London, UK.
Carola de BeerFaculty of Linguistics and Literary Studies & Medical School OWL, University of Bielefeld, Bielefeld, Germany.
Arpita BoseSchool of Psychology and Clinical Language Sciences, University of Reading, Reading, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-0193-5292
Audrey BowenGeoffrey Jefferson Brain Research Centre, The Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Northern Care Alliance & University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Marian C BradyNursing, Midwifery and Allied Health Professionals Research Unit, Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-4589-7021
Caterina BreitensteinDepartment of Neurology with Institute of Translational Neurology, University of Münster, Münster, Germany.
Stefanie BruehlSt. Mauritius Rehabilitation Centre, Meerbusch, Germany.
Lucy BryantUniversity of Technology Sydney Graduate School of Health, Faculty of Health, Sydney, NSW, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-8497-7406
Bonnie B Y ChengSchool of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-3433-8486
Leora R CherneyDepartment of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA.
Paul ConroyGeoffrey Jefferson Brain Research Centre, The Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Northern Care Alliance & University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
David A CoplandSchool of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.
Claire CroteauSchool of Speech-Language Pathology and Audiology, Centre for Interdisciplinary Research in Rehabilitation of Greater Montreal, Faculty of Medicine, Université de Montréal, Montreal, QC, Canada.
Madeline CruiceSchool of Health and Psychological Sciences, City, University of London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-7344-2262
Lucy DipperSchool of Health and Psychological Sciences, City, University of London, London, UK.
Katerina HilariSchool of Health and Psychological Sciences, City, University of London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-2091-4849
Tami HoweSchool of Audiology and Speech Sciences, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Helen KellySchool of Clinical Therapies, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland.
Swathi KiranDepartment of Speech, Language, and Hearing Sciences, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-1586-8913
Ann-Charlotte LaskaDepartment of Clinical Sciences, Karolinska Institutet Danderyd Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden.
Jane MarshallSchool of Health and Psychological Sciences, City, University of London, London, UK.
Laura L MurraySchool of Communication Sciences and Disorders, Western University, London, ON, Canada.
Janet PattersonResearch Service, VA Northern California Health Care System, Martinez, CA, USA.
Gill PearlSpeakeasy Specialist Aphasia Centre, Bury, UK.
Jana QuintingSpeech Language Pathology, Department of Rehabilitation and Special Education, Faculty of Human Sciences, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Elizabeth RochonDepartment of Speech-Language Pathology and Rehabilitation Sciences Institute, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Miranda L RoseQueensland Aphasia Research Centre, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.
Ilona Rubi-FessenSpeech Language Pathology, Department of Rehabilitation and Special Education, Faculty of Human Sciences, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Karen SageFaculty of Health and Education, Manchester Metropolitan University, Manchester, UK.
Nina Simmons-MackieCommunication Sciences & Disorders, Southeastern Louisiana University, Hammond, LA, USA.
Evy Visch-BrinkDepartment of Neurology, Erasmus University, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Anna VolkmerDeparment of Psychology and Language Sciences, University College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-4149-409X
Janet WebsterSchool of Education, Communication and Language Sciences, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
Anne WhitworthSchool of Health Sciences, College of Health and Medicine, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Australia.
Guylaine Le DorzeSchool of Speech-Language Pathology and Audiology, Centre for Interdisciplinary Research in Rehabilitation of Greater Montreal, Faculty of Medicine, Université de Montréal, Montreal, QC, Canada.
City, University of London · GBThe University of Queensland · AUCentre for Interdisciplinary Research in Rehabilitation · CALanguage Science (South Korea) · KRManchester Academic Health Science Centre · GBNorthwestern University · USUniversity of Cologne · DEAgricultural Development Advisory Service (United Kingdom) · GBBielefeld University · DEBoston University · USErasmus University Rotterdam · NLGlasgow Caledonian University · GBKarolinska Institutet · SELa Trobe University · AUManchester Metropolitan University · GBNewcastle College · GBSoutheastern Louisiana University · USSt. Mauritius Therapieklinik · DEUniversity College Cork · IEUniversity of British Columbia · CA

Funding

Neurobiology of Language Recovery in Aphasia: Natural History and Treatment-Ind*P50DC012283 · NIDCD · NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY · PI THOMPSON, CYNTHIA K · 2013 to 2017
$11.7M
NIDCD NIH HHS P50 DC012283
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEvidence-based recommendations for a core outcome set (COS; minimum set of outcomes) for aphasia treatment research have been developed (the Research Outcome Measurement in Aphasia-ROMA, COS). Five recommended core outcome constructs: communication, language, quality of life, emotional well-being and patient-reported satisfaction/impact of treatment, were identified through three international consensus studies. Constructs were paired with outcome measurement instruments (OMIs) during an international consensus meeting (ROMA-1). Before the current study (ROMA-2), agreement had not been reached on OMIs for the constructs of communication or patient-reported satisfaction/impact of treatment.

aimTo establish consensus on a communication OMI for inclusion in the ROMA COS. METHODS & PROCEDURES: Research methods were based on recommendations from the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) Initiative. Participants with expertise in design and conduct of aphasia trials, measurement instrument development/testing and/or communication outcome measurement were recruited through an open call. Before the consensus meeting, participants agreed on a definition of communication, identified appropriate OMIs, extracted their measurement properties and established criteria for their quality assessment. During the consensus meeting they short-listed OMIs and participants without conflicts of interest voted on the two most highly ranked instruments. Consensus was defined a priori as agreement by ≥ 70% of participants. OUTCOMES &

resultsIn total, 40 researchers from nine countries participated in ROMA-2 (including four facilitators and three-panel members who participated in pre-meeting activities only). A total of 20 OMIs were identified and evaluated. Eight short-listed communication measures were further evaluated for their measurement properties and ranked. Participants in the consensus meeting (n = 33) who did not have conflicts of interest (n = 29) voted on the top two ranked OMIs: The Scenario Test (TST) and the Communication Activities of Daily Living-3 (CADL-3). TST received 72% (n = 21) of 'yes' votes and the CADL-3 received 28% (n = 8) of 'yes' votes. CONCLUSIONS & IMPLICATIONS: Consensus was achieved that TST was the preferred communication OMI for inclusion in the ROMA COS. It is currently available in the original Dutch version and has been adapted into English, German and Greek. Further consideration must be given to the best way to measure communication in people with mild aphasia. Development of a patient-reported measure for satisfaction with/impact of treatment and multilingual versions of all OMIs of the COS is still required. Implementation of the ROMA COS would improve research outcome measurement and the quality, relevance, transparency, replicability and efficiency of aphasia treatment research. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS: What is already known on this subject International consensus has been reached on five core constructs to be routinely measured in aphasia treatment studies. International consensus has also been established for OMIs for the three constructs of language, quality of life and emotional well-being. Before this study, OMIs for the constructs of communication and patient-reported satisfaction/impact of treatment were not established. What this paper adds to existing knowledge We gained international consensus on an OMI for the construct of communication. TST is recommended for inclusion in the ROMA COS for routine use in aphasia treatment research. What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work? The ROMA COS recommends OMIs for a minimum set of outcomes for adults with post-stroke aphasia within phases I-IV aphasia treatment research. Although not intended for clinical use, clinicians may employ the instruments of the ROMA COS, considering the quality of their measurement properties. The systematic inclusion of a measure of communication, such as TST, in clinical practice could ultimately support the implementation of research evidence and best practices.

Indexed as

AphasiaCommunicationQuality of LifeActivities of Daily LivingAdultDelphi TechniqueHumansLanguageOutcome Assessment, Health CareResearch DesignTreatment Outcomeaphasiaconsensuscore outcome setrecommendationsstroke

Identifiers

PMID36583427
PMCPMC10946976
OpenAlexW4313312400

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.