Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40522296›Full record

SynthesisInternational journal of language & communication disorders

Arabic Aphasia Research Through a Clinical and Linguistic Lens: A Systematic Review of Current Limitations and Future Directions.

Tariq Khwaileh, Eiman Mustafawi, Shereen Elbuy, Noor Numan, Samawiyah Ulde

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in International journal of language & communication disorders. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

5 authors.

Tariq KhwailehDepartment of English Literature and Linguistics, Qatar University, Doha, Qatar.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2590-6920
Eiman MustafawiDepartment of English Literature and Linguistics, Qatar University, Doha, Qatar.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5271-9461
Shereen ElbuyDepartment of Linguistics, University of Potsdam, Potsdam, Germany.
Noor NumanDepartment of Patient Experience, Sidra Medicine, Doha, Qatar.
Samawiyah UldeDepartment of English Literature and Linguistics, Qatar University, Doha, Qatar.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0002-8520-3087

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAphasia has been widely investigated for English and other Indo-European languages such as German, Dutch, Italian and Spanish. It has been reported that published studies on Arabic aphasia only comprised five studies, accounting for only 0.40% of the total literature on aphasia between 2000 and 2009.

aimsThe present paper is a systematic review of studies that have been published on Arabic aphasia. The main objective of this study is to review the body of aphasia literature on Arabic, to identify strengths and weaknesses in the available clinical resources for Arabic aphasia.

methodsPreferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed. Five relevant databases were identified and searched using predefined keywords. A 6th source, Google Scholar, was also used to yield grey literature; these sources were screened on Scimago for quality assurance. Predefined eligibility criteria were then applied to the records that the initial search yielded. The final list of included studies was then qualitatively reviewed. MAIN CONTRIBUTION: The search yielded 48 studies. The resulting review identified a scarcity of research on assessment materials, efficacy of therapy and interventions and linguistic/psycholinguistic theory that underscores the development of clinical resources for Arabic aphasia. It suggested specific areas where development is required in each category. From the available research, it identified limitations in available materials for clinical assessment in Arabic aphasia. Specifically, that currently available materials are (a) primarily translations and adaptations of other languages rather than being developed with linguistically and culturally specific features of Arabic in mind; (b) are screening and short assessments rather than comprehensive batteries and (c) are not controlled for crucial psycholinguistic variables such as imageability and age of acquisition.

conclusionsWhile research on Arabic aphasia has been growing in the past few years, it lacks in several areas of investigation, including certain methodological approaches, the varieties investigated, aphasia types and the formulation of valid assessment protocols and therapy interventions. WHAT THIS STUDY ADDS: What is already known on this subject Aphasia has been widely investigated for English and other Indo-European languages such as German, Dutch, Italian and Spanish. It has been reported that published studies on Arabic aphasia only comprised five studies, accounting for only 0.40% of the total literature on aphasia between 2000 and 2009 (Beveridge and Bak 2011). However, the selection of these studies was done from only 4 journals. There is a need for a comprehensive review of all studies to date on Arabic aphasia following PRISMA guidelines. What this study adds to the existing knowledge This study reviewed 48 studies that presented original data on Arabic aphasia. We found that the majority of these studies were investigative in nature, where aphasic data was used to investigate linguistic or psycholinguistic theory. While these studies have clinical applications too, studies that developed protocols and materials for clinical assessment and tested the efficacy of various therapies and interventions in Arabic were comparatively limited. What are the clinical implications of this work? Specific future directions are provided to aid in the development of assessments and interventions in service of Arabic-speaking persons with aphasia.

Indexed as

AphasiaLanguageLinguisticsHumansaphasiaassessmentbrain damagecross‐linguisticmorphologyspeech and language therapy

Identifiers

PMID40522296
PMCPMC12169208

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.