Aphasia
Introduction
Aphasia is a language impairment that typically results from damage to the left hemisphere of the brain and consequently, is a common impairment after stroke. The resulting language dysfunctions are roughly classified as expressive (Broca's aphasia) or receptive (Wernicke's aphasia).
An individual with Broca's aphasia has a partial or total inability to speak or produce spontaneous speech. They often have no difficulty understanding others, however, thoughts and intentions are difficult to express and may be non-fluent in nature. This form of aphasia can also affect written communication.
An individual with Wernicke's aphasia has a partial or total inability to understand spoken and sometimes written language. Expression of language may be fluent in nature, but is not comprehensible.
The symptoms of global aphasia are those of severe Broca's aphasia and Wernicke's aphasia combined. There is an almost total reduction of all aspects of spoken and written language, in expression as well as comprehension.
Authors*: Amy Henderson, Sandra Bélisle-L'Anglais, Julie-France Hénault, Lyna Kaing, Caroline Lévesque, Sia Ching Tran, Véronique Vaillant, Adam Kagan
Expert reviewer: Rosemary Martino
*high quality = PEDro score 6-10
*fair quality = PEDro score 4-5
*poor quality = PEDro score ≤ 3
The PEDro scale was developed by the Physiotherapy Evidence Database to determine the quality of clinical trials. The PEDro scale consists of a checklist of 10 scored yes-or-no questions pertaining to the internal validity and the statistical information provided. Please click on the link for more information: http://www.pedro.org.au/english/downloads/pedro-scale/
A randomized controlled trial (RCT) is an experimental design in which subjects are randomly assigned to a treatment group, or to a control (no treatment or alternative treatment) group. Effects of the experimental treatment are then compared statistically to results of the control treatment to determine effectiveness.
*high quality = PEDro score 6-10
*fair quality = PEDro score 4-5
*poor quality = PEDro score ≤ 3
The PEDro scale was developed by the Physiotherapy Evidence Database to determine the quality of clinical trials. The PEDro scale consists of a checklist of 10 scored yes-or-no questions pertaining to the internal validity and the statistical information provided. Please click on the link for more information: http://www.pedro.org.au/english/downloads/pedro-scale/
*high quality = PEDro score 6-10
*fair quality = PEDro score 4-5
*poor quality = PEDro score ≤ 3
The PEDro scale was developed by the Physiotherapy Evidence Database to determine the quality of clinical trials. The PEDro scale consists of a checklist of 10 scored yes-or-no questions pertaining to the internal validity and the statistical information provided. Please click on the link for more information: http://www.pedro.org.au/english/downloads/pedro-scale/
A randomized controlled trial (RCT) is an experimental design in which subjects are randomly assigned to a treatment group, or to a control (no treatment or alternative treatment) group. Effects of the experimental treatment are then compared statistically to results of the control treatment to determine effectiveness.
*high quality = PEDro score 6-10
*fair quality = PEDro score 4-5
*poor quality = PEDro score ≤ 3
The PEDro scale was developed by the Physiotherapy Evidence Database to determine the quality of clinical trials. The PEDro scale consists of a checklist of 10 scored yes-or-no questions pertaining to the internal validity and the statistical information provided. Please click on the link for more information: http://www.pedro.org.au/english/downloads/pedro-scale/
*high quality = PEDro score 6-10
*fair quality = PEDro score 4-5
*poor quality = PEDro score ≤ 3
The PEDro scale was developed by the Physiotherapy Evidence Database to determine the quality of clinical trials. The PEDro scale consists of a checklist of 10 scored yes-or-no questions pertaining to the internal validity and the statistical information provided. Please click on the link for more information: http://www.pedro.org.au/english/downloads/pedro-scale/
*high quality = PEDro score 6-10
*fair quality = PEDro score 4-5
*poor quality = PEDro score ≤ 3
The PEDro scale was developed by the Physiotherapy Evidence Database to determine the quality of clinical trials. The PEDro scale consists of a checklist of 10 scored yes-or-no questions pertaining to the internal validity and the statistical information provided. Please click on the link for more information: http://www.pedro.org.au/english/downloads/pedro-scale/
A randomized controlled trial (RCT) is an experimental design in which subjects are randomly assigned to a treatment group, or to a control (no treatment or alternative treatment) group. Effects of the experimental treatment are then compared statistically to results of the control treatment to determine effectiveness.
Patients less than a month post-stroke are identified as in acute stage of recovery.
Patients longer than 6 months post-stroke are identified as in chronic stage of recovery.
| 1a (Strong) | Well-designed meta-analysis, or 2 or more high quality RCTs (PEDro ≥ 6) showing similar findings |
| 1b(Moderate) | 1 RCT of high quality (PEDro ≥ 6) |
| 2a (Limited) | At least 1 fair quality RCT (PEDro = 4-5) |
| 2b (Limited) | At least one poor quality RCT (PEDro < 4) or well-designed non-experimental study (non-randomized controlled trial, quasi-experimental studies, cohort studies with multiple baselines, single subject series with multiple baselines, etc.) |
| 3(Consensus) | Agreement by an expert panel or a group of professionals in the field or a number of pre-post studies all with similar results |
| 4 (Conflicting) | Conflicting evidence of 2 or more equally well-designed studies |
| 5 (No evidence) | No well-designed studies - only case studies/case descriptions or cohort studies/single subject series with no multiple baselines) |
| 1a (Strong) | Well-designed meta-analysis, or 2 or more high quality RCTs (PEDro ≥ 6) showing similar findings |
| 1b(Moderate) | 1 RCT of high quality (PEDro ≥ 6) |
| 2a (Limited) | At least 1 fair quality RCT (PEDro = 4-5) |
| 2b (Limited) | At least one poor quality RCT (PEDro < 4) or well-designed non-experimental study (non-randomized controlled trial, quasi-experimental studies, cohort studies with multiple baselines, single subject series with multiple baselines, etc.) |
| 3(Consensus) | Agreement by an expert panel or a group of professionals in the field or a number of pre-post studies all with similar results |
| 4 (Conflicting) | Conflicting evidence of 2 or more equally well-designed studies |
| 5 (No evidence) | No well-designed studies - only case studies/case descriptions or cohort studies/single subject series with no multiple baselines) |
| 1a (Strong) | Well-designed meta-analysis, or 2 or more high quality RCTs (PEDro ≥ 6) showing similar findings |
| 1b(Moderate) | 1 RCT of high quality (PEDro ≥ 6) |
| 2a (Limited) | At least 1 fair quality RCT (PEDro = 4-5) |
| 2b (Limited) | At least one poor quality RCT (PEDro < 4) or well-designed non-experimental study (non-randomized controlled trial, quasi-experimental studies, cohort studies with multiple baselines, single subject series with multiple baselines, etc.) |
| 3(Consensus) | Agreement by an expert panel or a group of professionals in the field or a number of pre-post studies all with similar results |
| 4 (Conflicting) | Conflicting evidence of 2 or more equally well-designed studies |
| 5 (No evidence) | No well-designed studies - only case studies/case descriptions or cohort studies/single subject series with no multiple baselines) |
| 1a (Strong) | Well-designed meta-analysis, or 2 or more high quality RCTs (PEDro ≥ 6) showing similar findings |
| 1b(Moderate) | 1 RCT of high quality (PEDro ≥ 6) |
| 2a (Limited) | At least 1 fair quality RCT (PEDro = 4-5) |
| 2b (Limited) | At least one poor quality RCT (PEDro < 4) or well-designed non-experimental study (non-randomized controlled trial, quasi-experimental studies, cohort studies with multiple baselines, single subject series with multiple baselines, etc.) |
| 3(Consensus) | Agreement by an expert panel or a group of professionals in the field or a number of pre-post studies all with similar results |
| 4 (Conflicting) | Conflicting evidence of 2 or more equally well-designed studies |
| 5 (No evidence) | No well-designed studies - only case studies/case descriptions or cohort studies/single subject series with no multiple baselines) |
Patients longer than 6 months post-stroke are identified as in chronic stage of recovery.
| 1a (Strong) | Well-designed meta-analysis, or 2 or more high quality RCTs (PEDro ≥ 6) showing similar findings |
| 1b(Moderate) | 1 RCT of high quality (PEDro ≥ 6) |
| 2a (Limited) | At least 1 fair quality RCT (PEDro = 4-5) |
| 2b (Limited) | At least one poor quality RCT (PEDro < 4) or well-designed non-experimental study (non-randomized controlled trial, quasi-experimental studies, cohort studies with multiple baselines, single subject series with multiple baselines, etc.) |
| 3(Consensus) | Agreement by an expert panel or a group of professionals in the field or a number of pre-post studies all with similar results |
| 4 (Conflicting) | Conflicting evidence of 2 or more equally well-designed studies |
| 5 (No evidence) | No well-designed studies - only case studies/case descriptions or cohort studies/single subject series with no multiple baselines) |
*high quality = PEDro score 6-10
*fair quality = PEDro score 4-5
*poor quality = PEDro score ≤ 3
The PEDro scale was developed by the Physiotherapy Evidence Database to determine the quality of clinical trials. The PEDro scale consists of a checklist of 10 scored yes-or-no questions pertaining to the internal validity and the statistical information provided. Please click on the link for more information: http://www.pedro.org.au/english/downloads/pedro-scale/
A randomized controlled trial (RCT) is an experimental design in which subjects are randomly assigned to a treatment group, or to a control (no treatment or alternative treatment) group. Effects of the experimental treatment are then compared statistically to results of the control treatment to determine effectiveness.
Patients longer than 6 months post-stroke are identified as in chronic stage of recovery.
| 1a (Strong) | Well-designed meta-analysis, or 2 or more high quality RCTs (PEDro ≥ 6) showing similar findings |
| 1b(Moderate) | 1 RCT of high quality (PEDro ≥ 6) |
| 2a (Limited) | At least 1 fair quality RCT (PEDro = 4-5) |
| 2b (Limited) | At least one poor quality RCT (PEDro < 4) or well-designed non-experimental study (non-randomized controlled trial, quasi-experimental studies, cohort studies with multiple baselines, single subject series with multiple baselines, etc.) |
| 3(Consensus) | Agreement by an expert panel or a group of professionals in the field or a number of pre-post studies all with similar results |
| 4 (Conflicting) | Conflicting evidence of 2 or more equally well-designed studies |
| 5 (No evidence) | No well-designed studies - only case studies/case descriptions or cohort studies/single subject series with no multiple baselines) |
Patients longer than 6 months post-stroke are identified as in chronic stage of recovery.
| 1a (Strong) | Well-designed meta-analysis, or 2 or more high quality RCTs (PEDro ≥ 6) showing similar findings |
| 1b(Moderate) | 1 RCT of high quality (PEDro ≥ 6) |
| 2a (Limited) | At least 1 fair quality RCT (PEDro = 4-5) |
| 2b (Limited) | At least one poor quality RCT (PEDro < 4) or well-designed non-experimental study (non-randomized controlled trial, quasi-experimental studies, cohort studies with multiple baselines, single subject series with multiple baselines, etc.) |
| 3(Consensus) | Agreement by an expert panel or a group of professionals in the field or a number of pre-post studies all with similar results |
| 4 (Conflicting) | Conflicting evidence of 2 or more equally well-designed studies |
| 5 (No evidence) | No well-designed studies - only case studies/case descriptions or cohort studies/single subject series with no multiple baselines) |
*high quality = PEDro score 6-10
*fair quality = PEDro score 4-5
*poor quality = PEDro score ≤ 3
The PEDro scale was developed by the Physiotherapy Evidence Database to determine the quality of clinical trials. The PEDro scale consists of a checklist of 10 scored yes-or-no questions pertaining to the internal validity and the statistical information provided. Please click on the link for more information: http://www.pedro.org.au/english/downloads/pedro-scale/
*high quality = PEDro score 6-10
*fair quality = PEDro score 4-5
*poor quality = PEDro score ≤ 3
The PEDro scale was developed by the Physiotherapy Evidence Database to determine the quality of clinical trials. The PEDro scale consists of a checklist of 10 scored yes-or-no questions pertaining to the internal validity and the statistical information provided. Please click on the link for more information: http://www.pedro.org.au/english/downloads/pedro-scale/
A randomized controlled trial (RCT) is an experimental design in which subjects are randomly assigned to a treatment group, or to a control (no treatment or alternative treatment) group. Effects of the experimental treatment are then compared statistically to results of the control treatment to determine effectiveness.
Patients longer than 6 months post-stroke are identified as in chronic stage of recovery.
| 1a (Strong) | Well-designed meta-analysis, or 2 or more high quality RCTs (PEDro ≥ 6) showing similar findings |
| 1b(Moderate) | 1 RCT of high quality (PEDro ≥ 6) |
| 2a (Limited) | At least 1 fair quality RCT (PEDro = 4-5) |
| 2b (Limited) | At least one poor quality RCT (PEDro < 4) or well-designed non-experimental study (non-randomized controlled trial, quasi-experimental studies, cohort studies with multiple baselines, single subject series with multiple baselines, etc.) |
| 3(Consensus) | Agreement by an expert panel or a group of professionals in the field or a number of pre-post studies all with similar results |
| 4 (Conflicting) | Conflicting evidence of 2 or more equally well-designed studies |
| 5 (No evidence) | No well-designed studies - only case studies/case descriptions or cohort studies/single subject series with no multiple baselines) |