Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38374687›Full record

ArticleClinical rehabilitation2024

Towards a core outcome set for dysarthria after stroke: What should we measure?

Claire Mitchell, Kate Woodward-Nutt, Annette Dancer, Stephen Taylor, Joe Bugler, Audrey Bowen, Paul Conroy, Brooke-Mai Whelan, Sarah J Wallace, Sabrina El Kouaissi and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Observational
  3. Article
  4. Stroke-associated dysarthria.Frontiers in neurology · 2025
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Communication partner training for aged-care workers: A scoping review.International journal of language & communication disorders
    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

11 authors.

Claire MitchellDivision of Psychology, Communication & Human Neuroscience, Geoffrey Jefferson Brain Research Centre, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-2445-8468
Kate Woodward-NuttResearch and Innovation, Northern Care Alliance, Salford Royal Hospital, Salford, UK.
Annette DancerHealing, Empowering and Recovering from Dysarthria, HEARD group, Patient Public Involvement, Manchester, UK.
Stephen TaylorHealing, Empowering and Recovering from Dysarthria, HEARD group, Patient Public Involvement, Manchester, UK.
Joe BuglerHealing, Empowering and Recovering from Dysarthria, HEARD group, Patient Public Involvement, Manchester, UK.
Audrey BowenDivision of Psychology & Mental Health, Geoffrey Jefferson Brain Research Centre, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-4075-1215
Paul ConroySchool of Linguistic, Speech and Communication Sciences, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.
Brooke-Mai WhelanSchool of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, The University of Queensland, Saint Lucia, QLD, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-7909-3160
Sarah J WallaceSchool of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, The University of Queensland, Saint Lucia, QLD, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-0600-9343
Sabrina El KouaissiDivision of Psychology, Communication & Human Neuroscience, Geoffrey Jefferson Brain Research Centre, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Jamie KirkhamCentre for Biostatistics, University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Delphi TechniqueDysarthriaStrokeStroke RehabilitationAgedAustraliaConsensusFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedOutcome Assessment, Health CareSurveys and QuestionnairesUnited KingdomDysarthriaoutcome assessment (health care)rehabilitationstroke

Identifiers

PMID38374687
PMCPMC11059832

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.