ArticleAphasiology2022
Factors predicting long-term recovery from post-stroke aphasia.
Article in Aphasiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- Aphasia Rehabilitation in India: Current Practices and Future Directions.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Predicting Post-Stroke Aphasia Speech Performance from Multimodal Data with Explainable Machine Learning.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- Development of a Risk Prediction Model for Post-Stroke Functional Recovery Based on Clinical and Nursing Factors.Risk management and healthcare policy · 2026Article
- Multifactorial interplay on language recovery following left-hemispheric stroke: A retrospective study.Journal of neuropsychology · 2025Article
- Charting the Course of Aphasia Recovery: Factors, Trajectories, and Outcomes.Annual review of linguistics · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Background: It remains widely accepted that spontaneous recovery from aphasia is largely limited to the first related factors. This has direct implications for acute and chronic interventions for aphasia. few months following stroke. A few recent studies challenge this view, revealing that some individuals' language abilities improve even during the chronic stage. Aims: To identify prognostic indicators of long-term aphasia recovery. Methods & Procedures: Eighteen people with aphasia initially evaluated in the chronic stage were retested at least one year later. The Western Aphasia Battery-Revised (WAB-R) Aphasia Quotient (AQ) was used to quantify changes in language impairment. Prognostic factors included those related to the patient (demographic, psychosocial), stroke (lesion volume and location), and treatment (medical, rehabilitative). Outcomes & Results: Twelve participants improved and 6 remained stable or declined. Linear regression analysis revealed that lesion volume predicted long-term language gains, with smaller lesions yielding greater improvements. Individuals who did not improve were more likely to have lesions encompassing critical frontal and temporoparietal cortical regions and interconnecting white matter pathways. Exploratory regression analysis of psychosocial and treatment-related factors revealed a positive relationship between improvement and satisfaction with life participation, and a negative relationship between improvement and perceived impairment severity. Critically, psychosocial and treatment-related factors significantly improved model fit over lesion volume, suggesting that these factors add predictive value to determining long-term aphasia prognosis. Conclusions: Long-term aphasia recovery is multidetermined by a combination of stroke-, psychosocial-, and treatment-related factors. This has direct implications for acute and chronic interventions for aphasia.
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.