Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36749552›Full record

SynthesisBrain topography2023

Electrophysiological Changes in Patients with Post-stroke Aphasia: A Systematic Review.

Sophie Arheix-Parras, Bertrand Glize, Dominique Guehl, Grégoire Python

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Brain topography, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. 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.

Sophie Arheix-ParrasACTIVE team, Bordeaux Population Health, INSERM UMR 1219, university of Bordeaux, 33000, Bordeaux, France. sophie.arheix-parras@u-bordeaux.fr.ORCID 0000-0002-6146-7275
Bertrand GlizeACTIVE team, Bordeaux Population Health, INSERM UMR 1219, university of Bordeaux, 33000, Bordeaux, France.ORCID 0000-0001-9618-2088
Dominique GuehlPole des neurosciences cliniques, CHU de Bordeaux, 33000, Bordeaux, France.
Grégoire PythonFaculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0002-9239-6035

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background Magnetoencephalography (MEG) and electroencephalography (EEG) record two main types of data: continuous measurements at rest or during sleep, and event-related potentials/evoked magnetic fields (ERPs/EMFs) that involve specific and repetitive tasks. In this systematic review, we summarized longitudinal studies on recovery from post-stroke aphasia that used continuous or event-related temporal imaging (EEG or MEG). Methods We searched PubMed and Scopus for English articles published from 1950 to May 31, 2022. Results 34 studies were included in this review: 11 were non-interventional studies and 23 were clinical trials that used specific rehabilitation methods, neuromodulation, or drugs. The results of the non-interventional studies suggested that poor language recovery was associated with slow-wave activity persisting over time. The results of some clinical trials indicated that behavioral improvements were correlated with significant modulation of the N400 component. Discussion Compared with continuous EEG, ERP/EMF may more reliably identify biomarkers of therapy-induced effects. Electrophysiology should be used more often to explore language processes that are impaired after a stroke, as it may highlight treatment challenges for patients with post-stroke aphasia.

Indexed as

AphasiaStrokeElectroencephalographyEvoked PotentialsFemaleHumansMagnetoencephalographyMaleAphasiaElectroencephalographyEvent-related potentialEvoked magnetic fieldMagnetoencephalographyStroke

Identifiers

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.