Treatment dose in post-stroke aphasia: A systematic scoping review

Reviews of primary research are becoming more common as evidence-based practice gains recognition as the benchmark for care, and the number of, and access to, primary research sources has grown. One of the newer review types is the 'scoping review'. In general, scoping reviews are commonly used for 'reconnaissance' - to clarify working definitions and conceptual boundaries of a topic or field. Scoping reviews are therefore particularly useful when a body of literature has not yet been comprehensively reviewed, or exhibits a complex or heterogeneous nature not amenable to a more precise systematic review of the evidence. While scoping reviews may be conducted to determine the value and probable scope of a full systematic review, they may also be undertaken as exercises in and of themselves to summarize and disseminate research findings, to identify research gaps, and to make recommendations for the future research. This article briefly introduces the reader to scoping reviews, how they are different to systematic reviews, and why they might be conducted. The methodology and guidance for the conduct of systematic scoping reviews outlined below was developed by members of the Joanna Briggs Institute and members of five Joanna Briggs Collaborating Centres.

Aim: To determine the types, severity and evolution of aphasia in unselected, acute stroke patients and evaluate potential predictors for language outcome 1 year after stroke. Methods: 270 acute stroke patients with aphasia (203 with first-ever strokes) were included consecutively and prospectively from three hospitals in Copenhagen, Denmark, and assessed with the Western Aphasia Battery. The assessment was repeated 1 year after stroke. Results: The frequencies of the different types of aphasia in acute first-ever stroke were: global 32%, Broca’s 12%, isolation 2%, transcortical motor 2%, Wernicke’s 16%, transcortical sensory 7%, conduction 5% and anomic 25%. These figures are not substantially different from what has been found in previous studies of more or less selected populations. The type of aphasia always changed to a less severe form during the first year. Nonfluent aphasia could evolve into fluent aphasia (e.g., global to Wernicke’s and Broca’s to anomic), whereas a fluent aphasia never evolved into a nonfluent aphasia. One year after stroke, the following frequencies were found: global 7%, Broca’s 13%, isolation 0%, transcortical motor 1%, Wernicke’s 5%, transcortical sensory 0%, conduction 6% and anomic 29%. The distribution of aphasia types in acute and chronic aphasia is, thus, quite different. The outcome for language function was predicted by initial severity of the aphasia and by the initial stroke severity (assessed by the Scandinavian Stroke Scale), but not by age, sex or type of aphasia. Thus, a scoring of general stroke severity helps to improve the accuracy of the prognosis for the language function. One year after stroke, fluent aphasics were older than nonfluent aphasics, whereas such a difference was not found in the acute phase.

Health-related quality of life (HRQL) is a key outcome in stroke clinical trials. Stroke-specific HRQL scales (eg, SS-QOL, SIS) have generally been developed with samples of stroke survivors that exclude people with aphasia. We adapted the SS-QOL for use with people with aphasia to produce the Stroke and Aphasia Quality of Life Scale (SAQOL). We report results from the psychometric evaluation of the initial 53-item SAQOL and the item-reduced SAQOL-39. We studied 95 people with long-term aphasia to evaluate the acceptability, reliability, and validity of the SAQOL and SAQOL-39 using standard psychometric methods. A total of 83 of 95 (87%) were able to complete the SAQOL by self-report; their results are reported here. Results supported the reliability and validity of the overall score on the 53-item SAQOL, but there was little support for hypothesized subdomains. Using factor analysis, we derived a shorter version (SAQOL-39) that identified 4 subdomains (physical, psychosocial, communication, and energy). The SAQOL-39 demonstrated good acceptability, internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha=0.74 to 0.94), test-retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient=0.89 to 0.98), and construct validity (corrected domain-total correlations, r=0.38 to 0.58; convergent, r=0.55 to 0.67; discriminant, r=0.02 to 0.27 validity). The SAQOL-39 is an acceptable, reliable, and valid measure of HRQL in people with long-term aphasia. Further testing is needed to evaluate the responsiveness of the SAQOL-39 and to investigate its usefulness in evaluative research and routine clinical practice.