ReviewBrain sciences2026
Informed Consent in Patients with Aphasia: Scoping Review of Clinical Decision-Making Tools and Medico-Legal Issues.
Review in Brain sciences, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Informed consent is a core ethical and legal requirement in clinical practice. For individuals with aphasia, language impairments can hinder communication during consent processes. However, aphasia is primarily a language disorder and does not inherently imply cognitive impairment, a distinction frequently overlooked in clinical and legal settings. This scoping review examines how decision-making capacity (DMC) is assessed and supported in adults with aphasia, and outlines the clinical, ethical, and medico-legal implications for consent procedures. The review followed PRISMA-ScR guidelines. A systematic search of biomedical and legal databases was conducted without time restrictions. Studies addressing informed consent or DMC in adults with aphasia were included and analyzed using a qualitative thematic approach. Out of 519 records, 9 studies (2010-2024) from Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom, and Ireland met inclusion criteria. These studies often referenced national legislation and rights-based frameworks to define clinical responsibilities. Three main themes emerged: (1) DMC assessments rely heavily on language, with limited involvement of speech-language pathologists (SLPs), despite their role in reducing bias; (2) supported communication strategies-such as simplified language, visual aids, alternative response formats, and structured tools-can uncover "hidden competence"; and (3) structural barriers, including time constraints, insufficient training, and limited access to aphasia services, restrict implementation. Current evidence remains limited, largely qualitative, and insufficient to support definitive clinical recommendations. Incorporating supported communication, multidisciplinary assessment, and thorough documentation may enhance fairness and legal robustness. Future research should focus on validating aphasia-sensitive tools and evaluating their impact on outcomes and medico-legal risk.
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.