Natalie Gilmore1, Michaela Dwyer2, Swathi Kiran2. 1. Aphasia Research Laboratory, Speech, Language, and Hearing Sciences, Sargent College of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, Boston University, Boston, MA. Electronic address: ngilmore@bu.edu. 2. Aphasia Research Laboratory, Speech, Language, and Hearing Sciences, Sargent College of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, Boston University, Boston, MA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To establish benchmarks of significant change for aphasia rehabilitation outcome measures (ie, Western Aphasia Battery-Aphasia Quotient [WAB-AQ], Communicative Effectiveness Index [CETI], Boston Naming Test [BNT]) and assess if those benchmarks significantly differ across subgroups (ie, time post onset, dose frequency, treatment type). DATA SOURCES: A comprehensive literature search of 12 databases, reference lists of previous reviews, and evidence-based practice materials was conducted. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized controlled trials, quasi-experimental studies, single-subject design, and case studies that used a standardized outcome measure to assess change were included. Titles and full-text articles were screened using a dual review process. Seventy-eight studies met criteria for inclusion. DATA EXTRACTION: Data were extracted independently, and 25% of extractions were checked for reliability. All included studies were assigned quality indicator ratings and an evidence level. DATA SYNTHESIS: Random-effects meta-analyses were conducted separately for each study design group (ie, within-/between-group comparisons). For within-group designs, the summary effect size after aphasia rehabilitation was 5.03 points (95% confidence interval, 3.95-6.10, P<.001) on the WAB-AQ, 10.37 points (6.08-14.66, P<.001) on the CETI, and 3.30 points (2.43-4.18, P<.001) on the BNT. For between-group designs, the summary effect size was 5.05 points (1.64-8.46, P=.004) on the WAB-AQ and 0.55 points (-1.33 to 2.43, P=.564) on the BNT, the latter of which was not significant. Subgroup analyses for the within-group designs showed no significant differences in the summary effect size as a function of dose frequency or treatment type. CONCLUSIONS: This study established benchmarks of significant change on 3 standardized outcome measures used in aphasia rehabilitation.
OBJECTIVE: To establish benchmarks of significant change for aphasia rehabilitation outcome measures (ie, Western Aphasia Battery-Aphasia Quotient [WAB-AQ], Communicative Effectiveness Index [CETI], Boston Naming Test [BNT]) and assess if those benchmarks significantly differ across subgroups (ie, time post onset, dose frequency, treatment type). DATA SOURCES: A comprehensive literature search of 12 databases, reference lists of previous reviews, and evidence-based practice materials was conducted. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized controlled trials, quasi-experimental studies, single-subject design, and case studies that used a standardized outcome measure to assess change were included. Titles and full-text articles were screened using a dual review process. Seventy-eight studies met criteria for inclusion. DATA EXTRACTION: Data were extracted independently, and 25% of extractions were checked for reliability. All included studies were assigned quality indicator ratings and an evidence level. DATA SYNTHESIS: Random-effects meta-analyses were conducted separately for each study design group (ie, within-/between-group comparisons). For within-group designs, the summary effect size after aphasia rehabilitation was 5.03 points (95% confidence interval, 3.95-6.10, P<.001) on the WAB-AQ, 10.37 points (6.08-14.66, P<.001) on the CETI, and 3.30 points (2.43-4.18, P<.001) on the BNT. For between-group designs, the summary effect size was 5.05 points (1.64-8.46, P=.004) on the WAB-AQ and 0.55 points (-1.33 to 2.43, P=.564) on the BNT, the latter of which was not significant. Subgroup analyses for the within-group designs showed no significant differences in the summary effect size as a function of dose frequency or treatment type. CONCLUSIONS: This study established benchmarks of significant change on 3 standardized outcome measures used in aphasia rehabilitation.
Authors: Kelsey T Laird; Emily E Tanner-Smith; Alexandra C Russell; Steve D Hollon; Lynn S Walker Journal: Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2015-12-22 Impact factor: 11.382
Authors: Laura Dickey; Aura Kagan; M Patrice Lindsay; Jiming Fang; Alexandra Rowland; Sandra Black Journal: Arch Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2010-02 Impact factor: 3.966
Authors: Katerina Hilari; Donna L Lamping; Sarah C Smith; Sarah Northcott; Alice Lamb; Jane Marshall Journal: Clin Rehabil Date: 2009-05-15 Impact factor: 3.477
Authors: Michael Iorga; James Higgins; David Caplan; Richard Zinbarg; Swathi Kiran; Cynthia K Thompson; Brenda Rapp; Todd B Parrish Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2021-04-19 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Steven C Cramer; Steven L Wolf; Jeffrey L Saver; Karen C Johnston; J Mocco; Maarten G Lansberg; Sean I Savitz; David S Liebeskind; Wade Smith; Max Wintermark; Jordan J Elm; Pooja Khatri; Joseph P Broderick; Scott Janis Journal: Stroke Date: 2021-02-10 Impact factor: 7.914