ArticleClinical rehabilitation2024
Towards a core outcome set for dysarthria after stroke: What should we measure?
Article in Clinical rehabilitation, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- How do we measure dysarthria after stroke? A systematic review to guide the core outcome set for dysarthria.BMJ open · 2025Pooled it
- Integrated acoustic and respiratory biomarkers of dysarthria in acquired brain injury: protocol for a cross-sectional study.BMJ open · 2026Observational
- Living with Dysphagia and Dysarthria: A Qualitative Exploration of the Perspectives of People with Motor Neuron Disease and Their Caregivers.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Stroke-associated dysarthria.Frontiers in neurology · 2025Review
- Cortical morphological changes in stroke-associated dysarthria patients.Frontiers in neurologyArticle
- Communication partner training for aged-care workers: A scoping review.International journal of language & communication disordersArticle
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo identify and agree on what outcome domains should be measured in research and clinical practice when working with stroke survivors who have dysarthria.
designDelphi process, two rounds of an online survey followed by two online consensus meetings.
settingUK and Australia.
participantsStroke survivors with experience of dysarthria, speech and language therapists/pathologists working in stroke and communication researchers.
methodsInitial list of outcome domains generated from existing literature and with our patient and public involvement group to develop the survey. Participants completed two rounds of this survey to rate importance. Outcomes were identified as 'in', 'unclear' or 'out' from the second survey. All participants were invited to two consensus meetings to discuss these results followed by voting to identify critically important outcome domains for a future Core Outcome Set. All outcomes were voted on in the consensus meetings and included if 70% of meeting participants voted 'yes' for critically important.
resultsIn total, 148 surveys were fully completed, and 28 participants attended the consensus meetings. A core outcome set for dysarthria after stroke should include four outcome domains: (a) intelligibility of speech, (b) ability to participate in conversations, (c) living well with dysarthria, (d) skills and knowledge of communication partners (where relevant).
conclusionsWe describe the consensus of 'what' speech outcomes after stroke are valued by all stakeholders including those with lived experience. We share these findings to encourage the measurement of these domains in clinical practice and research and for future research to identify 'how' best to measure these outcomes.
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.