ArticleClinical rehabilitation2026
Comparing inpatient stroke rehabilitation care and outcomes for people with and without aphasia in Australia.
Article in Clinical rehabilitation, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
ObjectiveTo investigate whether presence of aphasia is associated with differences in inpatient stroke rehabilitation care and outcomes.DesignObservational study of cross-sectional data from hospitals participating in the biennial National Stroke Audit - Rehabilitation Services (Stroke Foundation, 2016, 2018 and 2020). Descriptive statistics and multi-level multi-variable logistic regression were used to examine associations between aphasia status, processes of care, and patient outcomes, with level defined as hospital.SettingAustralian inpatient rehabilitation hospitals.ParticipantsAll patients with stroke who had aphasia status recorded.Main measuresAdherence to processes of care recommended in the Australian and New Zealand Clinical Guidelines for Stroke Management. In-hospital outcomes included complications, independence, survival, and discharge destination.ResultsOverall, 9960 audits were included; 3160 (33%) patients had aphasia (56% male; median age 75; no aphasia: 56% male; median age 76). Patients with aphasia were more likely to have a mood impairment (54% vs. 44%) and less likely to be assessed by a psychologist (40% vs. 49%). Fewer patients with aphasia were involved in goal setting (84% vs. 88%) or development of care plans (91% vs. 96%); or asked about returning to work (67% vs. 74%) or driving (41% vs. 45%). Patients with aphasia had a longer length of stay (median 26 vs. 21 days, p≤0.001) and were less independent on discharge (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 0.80, 95% CI 0.71, 0.90).ConclusionsIdentified differences in stroke rehabilitation highlight the need for equitable access to care and effective patient-provider communication enabling people with aphasia to more fully participate in their rehabilitation.
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.