ArticleAmerican journal of speech-language pathology2026
Personalization of Words in Anomia Treatment for People With Aphasia: A Scoping Review.
Article in American journal of speech-language pathology, 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThis scoping review examined how "personalization" of treatment targets, specifically words, has been defined and implemented in anomia interventions for people with aphasia following stroke or primary progressive aphasia. The review identified (a) how studies define personalized words, (b) the methods used to select them, and (c) the linguistic characteristics of personalized targets.
methodFollowing the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews, systematic searches were conducted in MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Web of Science, and CINAHL on July 8, 2024, with no date limits. Eligible studies reported treatment involving personalized single-word targets for adults with aphasia. Data extraction captured how personalization was defined or described, word selection methods, involvement of participants and partners, and linguistic characteristics. Descriptor terms were analyzed for semantic relatedness using the WordNet LESK algorithm to identify higher order dimensions of the concept "personalization."
resultsTwenty-one studies met inclusion criteria. Few provided explicit definitions; most described personalization using descriptors such as "relevant," "functional," "familiar," "useful," "frequent," and "meaningful." Network analysis grouped these into three dimensions: meaningful, functional, and frequent. Common selection methods included interviews (
conclusionsPersonalization is widely referenced in anomia treatment but rarely operationalized. Clearer reporting of personalization dimensions, selection methods, and linguistic features would improve comparability and align research with person-centered frameworks such as the Life Participation Approach to Aphasia and the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL: https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.32118373.
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.