ArticlePerspectives of the ASHA special interest groups2025
A Practical Guide to Translating Scientific Publications Into Aphasia-Friendly Summaries.
Article in Perspectives of the ASHA special interest groups, 2025. 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.
- A global multilingual cocreation of aphasia priority topics through patient and public involvement.Research involvement and engagement · 2026Article
- Neural Correlates of Rhythm in Post-Stroke Aphasia.Neurobiology of language (Cambridge, Mass.) · 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Purpose: Research in aphasiology is largely not accessible. Almost none of the articles published in the field's rich, over 150-year history are communicated in a way that is understandable to those who could benefit from them the most-individuals with aphasia and their loved ones. In this tutorial, we detail how researchers in any field of aphasiology can create aphasia-friendly research summaries of their scientific publications. This step-by-step guide in eight simple parts covers principles of aphasia-friendly written communication (e.g., use of plain language and supportive icons and images) and makes use of freely available resources. We also introduce a prototype tool-Article Friend-that automatically generates aphasia-friendly abstracts to jump-start this process for researchers; this preliminary tool serves as a proof of concept that creating accessible research can be an efficient, sustainable practice in the scientific publishing landscape. Conclusions: The tutorial provides researchers with specific tools and examples to effectively and easily create aphasia-friendly summaries of their publications. Principles from our tutorial extend beyond aphasia and can apply to consumers affected by other communication and cognitive disorders, such as developmental language disorder, dementia, and traumatic brain injury. Making research available to patient stakeholders and their loved ones can empower them to access and understand the research they have contributed to, ultimately furthering increased community engagement and interchange between researchers, clinicians, consumers with aphasia, and policymakers. Supplemental Material: https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.28590227.
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.