Search

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-wso-10.1177_17474930221097477 for Precision rehabilitation for aphasia by patient age, sex, aphasia severity, and time since stroke? A prespecified, systematic review-based, individual participant data, network, subgroup meta-analysis by Marian C Brady, Myzoon Ali, Kathryn VandenBerg, Linda J Williams, Louise R Williams, Masahiro Abo, Frank Becker, Audrey Bowen, Caitlin Brandenburg, Caterina Breitenstein, Stefanie Bruehl, David A Copland, Tamara B Cranfill, Marie di Pietro-Bachmann, Pamela Enderby, Joanne Fillingham, Federica Lucia Galli, Marialuisa Gandolfi, Bertrand Glize, Erin Godecke, Neil Hawkins, Katerina Hilari, Jacqueline Hinckley, Simon Horton, David Howard, Petra Jaecks, Elizabeth Jefferies, Luis MT Jesus, Maria Kambanaros, Eun Kyoung Kang, Eman M Khedr, Anthony Pak-Hin Kong, Tarja Kukkonen, Marina Laganaro, Matthew A Lambon Ralph, Ann Charlotte Laska, Béatrice Leemann, Alexander P Leff, Roxele R Lima, Antje Lorenz, Brian MacWhinney, Rebecca Shisler Marshall, Flavia Mattioli, İlknur Maviş, Marcus Meinzer, Reza Nilipour, Enrique Noé, Nam-Jong Paik, Rebecca Palmer, Ilias Papathanasiou, Brigida Patricio, Isabel Pavão Martins, Cathy Price, Tatjana Prizl Jakovac, Elizabeth Rochon, Miranda L Rose, Charlotte Rosso, Ilona Rubi-Fessen, Marina B Ruiter, Claerwen Snell, Benjamin Stahl, Jerzy P Szaflarski, Shirley A Thomas, Mieke van de Sandt-Koenderman, Ineke van der Meulen, Evy Visch-Brink, Linda Worrall, Heather Harris Wright and in International Journal of Stroke

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-cre-10.1177_02692155221131241 for Establishing reporting standards for participant characteristics in post-stroke aphasia research: An international e-Delphi exercise and consensus meeting by Sarah J Wallace, Megan Isaacs, Myzoon Ali and Marian C Brady in Clinical Rehabilitation

Supplemental material, sj-docx-2-cre-10.1177_02692155221131241 for Establishing reporting standards for participant characteristics in post-stroke aphasia research: An international e-Delphi exercise and consensus meeting by Sarah J Wallace, Megan Isaacs, Myzoon Ali and Marian C Brady in Clinical Rehabilitation

Background: Collation of aphasia research data across settings, countries and study designs using big data principles will support analyses across different language modalities, levels of impairment, and therapy interventions in this heterogeneous population. Big data approaches in aphasia research may support vital analyses, which are unachievable within individual trial datasets. However, we lack insight into the requirements for a systematically created database, the feasibility and challenges and potential utility of the type of data collated.\ud \ud \ud \ud Aim: To report the development, preparation and establishment of an internationally agreed aphasia after stroke research database of individual participant data (IPD) to facilitate planned aphasia research analyses.\ud \ud \ud \ud Methods: Data were collated by systematically identifying existing, eligible studies in any language (≥10 IPD, data on time since stroke, and language performance) and included sourcing from relevant aphasia research networks. We invited electronic contributions and also extracted IPD from the public domain. Data were assessed for completeness, validity of value-ranges within variables, and described according to pre-defined categories of demographic data, therapy descriptions, and language domain measurements. We cleaned, clarified, imputed and standardised relevant data in collaboration with the original study investigators. We presented participant, language, stroke, and therapy data characteristics of the final database using summary statistics.\ud \ud \ud \ud Results: From 5256 screened records, 698 datasets were potentially eligible for inclusion; 174 datasets (5928 IPD) from 28 countries were included, 47/174 RCT datasets (1778 IPD) and 91/174 (2834 IPD) included a speech and language therapy (SLT) intervention. Participants’ median age was 63 years (interquartile range [53, 72]), 3407 (61.4%) were male and median recruitment time was 321 days (IQR 30, 1156) after stroke. IPD were available for aphasia severity or ability overall (n = 2699; 80 datasets), naming (n = 2886; 75 datasets), auditory comprehension (n = 2750; 71 datasets), functional communication (n = 1591; 29 datasets), reading (n = 770; 12 datasets) and writing (n = 724; 13 datasets). Information on SLT interventions were described by theoretical approach, therapy target, mode of delivery, setting and provider. Therapy regimen was described according to intensity (1882 IPD; 60 datasets), frequency (2057 IPD; 66 datasets), duration (1960 IPD; 64 datasets) and dosage (1978 IPD; 62 datasets).\ud \ud \ud \ud Discussion: Our international IPD archive demonstrates the application of big data principles in the context of aphasia research; our rigorous methodology for data acquisition and cleaning can serve as a template for the establishment of similar databases in other research areas.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The factors associated with recovery of language domains after stroke remain uncertain. We described recovery of overall-language-ability, auditory comprehension, naming, and functional-communication across participants’ age, sex, and aphasia chronicity in a large, multilingual, international aphasia dataset. METHODS: Individual participant data meta-analysis of systematically sourced aphasia datasets described overall-language ability using the Western Aphasia Battery Aphasia-Quotient; auditory comprehension by Aachen Aphasia Test (AAT) Token Test; naming by Boston Naming Test and functional-communication by AAT Spontaneous-Speech Communication subscale. Multivariable analyses regressed absolute score-changes from baseline across language domains onto covariates identified a priori in randomized controlled trials and all study types. Change-from-baseline scores were presented as estimates of means and 95% CIs. Heterogeneity was described using relative variance. Risk of bias was considered at dataset and meta-analysis level. RESULTS: Assessments at baseline (median=43.6 weeks poststroke; interquartile range [4–165.1]) and first-follow-up (median=10 weeks from baseline; interquartile range [3–26]) were available for n=943 on overall-language ability, n=1056 on auditory comprehension, n=791 on naming and n=974 on functional-communication. Younger age (

Background: Speech and language therapy (SLT) benefits people with aphasia following stroke. Group level summary statistics from randomised controlled trials hinder exploration of highly complex SLT interventions and a clinically relevant heterogeneous population. Creating a database of individual participant data (IPD) for people with aphasia aims to allow exploration of individual and therapy-related predictors of recovery and prognosis. Aim: To explore the contribution that individual participant characteristics (including stroke and aphasia profiles) and SLT intervention components make to language recovery following stroke. Methods and procedures: We will identify eligible IPD datasets (including randomised controlled trials, non-randomised comparison studies, observational studies and registries) and invite their contribution to the database. Where possible, we will use meta- and network meta-analysis to explore language performance after stroke and predictors of recovery as it relates to participants who had no SLT, historical SLT or SLT in the primary research study. We will also examine the components of effective SLT interventions. Outcomes and results: Outcomes include changes in measures of functional communication, overall severity of language impairment, auditory comprehension, spoken language (including naming), reading and writing from baseline. Data captured on assessment tools will be collated and transformed to a standardised measure for each of the outcome domains. Conclusion: Our planned systematic-review-based IPD meta- and network meta-analysis is a large scale, international, multidisciplinary and methodologically complex endeavour. It will enable hypotheses to be generated and tested to optimise and inform development of interventions for people with aphasia after stroke. Systematic review registration: The protocol has been registered at the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO; registration number: CRD42018110947)

Introduction:\ud \ud Short‐form versions of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (SF‐MoCA) are increasingly used to screen for dementia in research and practice. We sought to collate evidence on the accuracy of SF‐MoCAs and to externally validate these assessment tools.\ud Methods:\ud \ud We performed systematic literature searching across multidisciplinary electronic literature databases, collating information on the content and accuracy of all published SF‐MoCAs. We then validated all the SF‐MoCAs against clinical diagnosis using independent stroke (n = 787) and memory clinic (n = 410) data sets.\ud Results:\ud \ud We identified 13 different SF‐MoCAs (21 studies, n = 6477 participants) with differing test content and properties. There was a pattern of high sensitivity across the range of SF‐MoCA tests. In the published literature, for detection of post stroke cognitive impairment, median sensitivity across included studies: 0.88 (range: 0.70‐1.00); specificity: 0.70 (0.39‐0.92). In our independent validation using stroke data, median sensitivity: 0.99 (0.80‐1.00); specificity: 0.40 (0.14‐0.87). To detect dementia in older adults, median sensitivity: 0.88 (0.62‐0.98); median specificity: 0.87 (0.07‐0.98) in the literature and median sensitivity: 0.96 (range: 0.72‐1.00); median specificity: 0.36 (0.14‐0.86) in our validation. Horton's SF‐MoCA (delayed recall, serial subtraction, and orientation) had the most favorable properties in stroke (sensitivity: 0.90, specificity: 0.87, positive predictive value [PPV]: 0.55, and negative predictive value [NPV]: 0.93), whereas Cecato's “MoCA reduced” (clock draw, animal naming, delayed recall, and orientation) performed better in the memory clinic (sensitivity: 0.72, specificity: 0.86, PPV: 0.55, and NPV: 0.93).\ud Conclusions:\ud \ud There are many published SF‐MoCAs. Clinicians and researchers using a SF‐MoCA should be explicit about the content. For all SF‐MoCA, sensitivity is high and similar to the full scale suggesting potential utility as an initial cognitive screening tool. However, choice of SF‐MoCA should be informed by the clinical population to be studied.

Background: Speech and language therapy (SLT) benefits people with aphasia following stroke. Group level summary statistics from randomised controlled trials hinder exploration of highly complex SLT interventions and a clinically relevant heterogeneous population. Creating a database of individual participant data (IPD) for people with aphasia aims to allow exploration of individual and therapy-related predictors of recovery and prognosis.Aim: To explore the contribution that individual participant characteristics (including stroke and aphasia profiles) and SLT intervention components make to language recovery following stroke.Methods and procedures: We will identify eligible IPD datasets (including randomised controlled trials, non-randomised comparison studies, observational studies and registries) and invite their contribution to the database. Where possible, we will use metaand network meta-analysis to explore language performance after stroke and predictors of recovery as it relates to participants who had no SLT, historical SLT or SLT in the primary research study. We will also examine the components of effective SLT interventions.Outcomes and results: Outcomes include changes in measures of functional communication, overall severity of language impairment, auditory comprehension, spoken language (including naming), reading and writing from baseline. Data captured on assessment tools will be collated and transformed to a standardised measure for each of the outcome domains.Conclusion: Our planned systematic-review-based IPD meta- and network meta-analysis is a large scale, international, multidisciplinary and methodologically complex endeavour. It will enable hypotheses to be generated and tested to optimise and inform development of interventions for people with aphasia after stroke.Systematic review registration: The protocol has been registered at the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO; registration number: CRD42018110947)