ReviewFrontiers in psychology2024
Time reference in aphasia: are there differences between tenses and aphasia fluency type? A systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis.
Review in Frontiers in psychology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Action naming in French: Normative data and response latencies for 134 video stimuli.Behavior research methods · 2026Article
- Executive functions predict time reference processing in French-speaking people with Alzheimer's disease.Scientific reports · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Time reference is used to build the temporal framework of discourse and is essential in ensuring efficient communication. Several studies have reported time reference deficits in fluent and non-fluent aphasia and have shown that tenses (past, present, future) are not all impaired to the same extent. However, there is little consensus on the dissociations between tenses, and the question of the influence of the type of aphasia (fluent vs. non-fluent) on time reference remains open. Therefore, a systematic review and an individual participant data meta-analysis (or mega-analysis) were conducted to determine (1) whether one tense is more impaired than another in fluent and non-fluent aphasia and, if so, (2) which task and speaker-related factors moderate tense effects. The systematic review resulted in 35 studies reporting the performance in time reference of 392 participants. The mega-analysis was then performed on 23 studies for a total of 232 participants and showed an alteration of past tense compared to present and future tenses in both types of aphasia. The analysis also showed a task and an age effect on time reference but no gender effect, independently of tenses. These results add to our knowledge of time reference in aphasia and have implications for future therapies.
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.