University:
Boston University
Course:
SAR HP 151 | Introduction to Health Professions
Academic year:

2024
Views:

267

Pages:

9
Author:

saetadzjeg

A systema)c review of outcome measures u)lized in aphasia treatment research, including meta-analysis • Wide variety of outcome measures used in aphasia treatment research • No systemaNcally-established benchmarks on these measures to show change • Creates challenges for clinicians and researchers alike Useful frameworks for classifying aphasia assessments and interven)ons Many diﬀerent treatment approaches Body Structure/Func)on Group Loca)on Use Associa)on Boyle & Coehlo, 1995 Ac)vity/Par)cipa)on Quality of Life Aten, Caligiuri, Holland, 1982 Elman, 2016 Ac)on Proper)es Many diﬀerent assessment measures Body Structure/Func)on Kertesz, 2006 Ac)vity/Par)cipa)on Holland, Fra\ali, & Fromm, 1999 Quality of Life Hilari, Byng, Lamping & Smith, 2003 Showing change from interven)on is essen)al • Inconsistency in measurement use • Clinicians (Hesketh & Hopcu\, 1997; Worrall & Egan, 2001; Simmons-Mackie, Threats & Kagan, 2004) • Researchers (Brady et al., 2016, Wallace et al., 2014) • Steps to manage this challenge • Improving Research Outcome Measurement in Aphasia (ROMA) & Core Outcome Set (COS)(Wallace et al., 2014) • Yet, what is the average change on these measures? <- our primary aim • Clinicians -> Choose appropriate tools -> Eﬃcacy & reimbursement • Researchers -> Select best measures -> Appropriately-powered studies & easier meta-analyses Speciﬁc Aims of this project 1 Iden)ﬁca)on of outcome measures used in behavioral aphasia treatment research 2 Classiﬁca)on of interven)ons and outcome measures according to their associa)on with health and health-related domains using ICF & A-FROM 3 Calcula)on of the mean signiﬁcant change reported on the most frequently-used and most relevant outcome measures Methods • Preferred ReporNng Items for SystemaNc Review and Meta-analysis Protocol (PRISMA-P) • Registered on InternaNonal ProspecNve Register of SystemaNc Reviews (PROSPERO) • Comprehensive literature search • Screening, data extracNon and raNng of quality of evidence • 2 independent reviewers Literature Search 12 databases: • • • • • • • PubMed CINAHL PsychInfo SpeechBite EMBASE SCOPUS Web of Science Sample Search Strategy : • • • • • PLoS Worldcat NARIC GoogleScholar LinguisNc & Language Behavior Abstracts (LLBA) ‘aphasia’ AND ‘treatment’ OR ‘therapy’ OR ’intervenNon’ OR ‘rehabilitaNon’ OR ‘outcome’ OR ‘training’ OR ‘educaNon’ AND ‘adult’ NOT ‘primary progressive aphasia’ OR ‘demenNa’ OR ‘degluNNon disorders’ OR ‘transcranial magneNc sNmulaNon’ OR ‘transcranial direct current sNmulaNon’ NOT ‘pharmaceuNcal preparaNons’ Eligibility Criteria Included: • Behavioral aphasia treatment studies • Used standardized outcome measure to measure change • Randomized-controlled trials, quasi-experimental studies, single-subject designs and case reports (i.e., N of 3) Excluded: • Diagnoses of primary progressive aphasia, demenNa, traumaNc brain injury (TBI), voice impairment, dysarthria and apraxia of speech (AOS) • Drug treatments or neuro-modulaNon (e.g., repeNNve transcranial magneNc sNmulaNon (rTMS)) • QualitaNve research designs • Studies evaluaNng the validity of an assessment tool Iden)ﬁca)on Records iden)ﬁed through database searching (n = 15,809) Addi)onal records iden)ﬁed through other sources (n = 151) Records a[er duplicates removed (n = 9285) Screening Titles and abstracts screened (n =9285) Excluded (n = 8428) Excluded with reasons (n=548) Eligibility Full-text ar)cles assessed for eligibility (n = 858) Included Studies included in qualita)ve synthesis (n = 310) Wrong popula)on = 60 Not behavioral treatment = 3 Not treatment study = 80 N of 1 = 3 N of 2 = 7 Non-English = 11 Not peer-reviewed = 9 Duplicate = 9 Other = 2 No standardized measure =330 Duplicate data set = 29 Ongoing study = 5 Studies included in quan)ta)ve synthesis TBD ajer IARC 2016