BACKGROUND/AIMS: A third of individuals are depressed following stroke. A similar proportion have aphasia. The extent of their inclusion in depression following stroke studies affects the generalizability of findings. METHODS: We systematically reviewed published studies (to December 2005) that diagnosed depression following stroke. We identified aphasia screening methods, aphasia exclusion and inclusion criteria and respective numbers of individuals with aphasia. RESULTS: Of 129 studies (n = 19,183), aphasia screening methods were only reported by 57 (31 described a published aphasia-specific tool). No mention of aphasia was made in 13 studies. Most studies (92, 71%) reported some exclusion of people with aphasia (49 reported how many: n = 3,082, range = 2-554). Almost half of the studies (60, 47%) actually reported participants with aphasia (37 specified numbers: n = 829, range = 5-60). Aphasia exclusion or inclusion was not associated with sample source (community, acute hospital, other) or study purpose (observation, intervention, screening). Studies that reported screening for aphasia were more likely to describe aphasia exclusion and inclusion criteria and include participants with aphasia. CONCLUSION: Aphasia screening, exclusion and inclusion criteria reporting across studies of depression following stroke has been highly inconsistent. This impairs the interpretation of generalizability. Improved aphasia screening and reporting of exclusion and inclusion criteria are urgently recommended. (c) 2007 S. Karger AG, Basel.
BACKGROUND/AIMS: A third of individuals are depressed following stroke. A similar proportion have aphasia. The extent of their inclusion in depression following stroke studies affects the generalizability of findings. METHODS: We systematically reviewed published studies (to December 2005) that diagnosed depression following stroke. We identified aphasia screening methods, aphasia exclusion and inclusion criteria and respective numbers of individuals with aphasia. RESULTS: Of 129 studies (n = 19,183), aphasia screening methods were only reported by 57 (31 described a published aphasia-specific tool). No mention of aphasia was made in 13 studies. Most studies (92, 71%) reported some exclusion of people with aphasia (49 reported how many: n = 3,082, range = 2-554). Almost half of the studies (60, 47%) actually reported participants with aphasia (37 specified numbers: n = 829, range = 5-60). Aphasia exclusion or inclusion was not associated with sample source (community, acute hospital, other) or study purpose (observation, intervention, screening). Studies that reported screening for aphasia were more likely to describe aphasia exclusion and inclusion criteria and include participants with aphasia. CONCLUSION:Aphasia screening, exclusion and inclusion criteria reporting across studies of depression following stroke has been highly inconsistent. This impairs the interpretation of generalizability. Improved aphasia screening and reporting of exclusion and inclusion criteria are urgently recommended. (c) 2007 S. Karger AG, Basel.
Authors: Lisa Edelkraut; Diana López-Barroso; María José Torres-Prioris; Sergio E Starkstein; Ricardo E Jorge; Jessica Aloisi; Marcelo L Berthier; Guadalupe Dávila Journal: World J Psychiatry Date: 2022-03-19