SynthesisBMC geriatrics2024
Meta-analysis and systematic review of the relationship between sex and the risk or incidence of poststroke aphasia and its types.
Synthesis in BMC geriatrics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Challenges and Strategies in Interviewing People With Acquired Brain Injury and Communication Impairment in Qualitative Interview Studies: A Secondary Analysis of Interview Data.Journal of clinical nursing · 2026Article
- Sex differences in location of initial diagnosis and discharge destination among medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries with post-stroke aphasia.Frontiers in stroke · 2026Article
- Sex Classification Based on the Functional Connectivity Patterns of the Language Network: A Resting State fMRI Study.Human brain mapping · 2026Article
- Precision-Optimised Post-Stroke Prognoses.Annals of clinical and translational neurology · 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
9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo analyse and discuss the association of gender differences with the risk and incidence of poststroke aphasia (PSA) and its types, and to provide evidence-based guidance for the prevention and treatment of poststroke aphasia in clinical practice. DATA SOURCES: Embase, PubMed, Cochrane Library and Web of Science were searched from January 1, 2002, to December 1, 2023. STUDY SELECTION: Including the total number of strokes, aphasia, the number of different sexes or the number of PSA corresponding to different sex. DATA EXTRACTION: Studies with missing data, aphasia caused by nonstroke and noncompliance with the requirements of literature types were excluded. DATA SYNTHESIS: 36 papers were included, from 19 countries. The analysis of 168,259 patients with stroke and 31,058 patients with PSA showed that the risk of PSA was 1.23 times higher in female than in male (OR = 1.23, 95% CI = 1.19-1.29, P < 0.001), with a prevalence of PSA of 31% in men and 36% in women, and an overall prevalence of 34% (P < 0.001). Analysis of the risk of the different types of aphasia in 1,048 patients with PSA showed a high risk in females for global, broca and Wenicke aphasia, and a high risk in males for anomic, conductive and transcortical aphasia, which was not statistically significant by meta-analysis. The incidence of global aphasia (males vs. females, 29% vs. 32%) and broca aphasia (17% vs 19%) were higher in females, and anomic aphasia (19% vs 14%) was higher in males, which was statistically significant (P < 0.05).
conclusionsThere are gender differences in the incidence and types of PSA. The risk of PSA in female is higher than that in male.
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.