Constrained-Induced Dysarthria Therapy: Case Report

Roggeman, Stijn; Truyers, Chris; Safin, Iwona; Huysman, Eline; Dan, Bernard

doi:10.5535/arm.2019.43.1.115

Cited by 4 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…FDA‐2 was the most commonly used scale for dysarthric patients after stroke 8,20,23‐26 . Speech Intelligibility Test (SIT) 27 was used in four studies, 24,28‐30 and Communication Outcomes After Stroke Scale (COAST) 31 was used in three studies 25,32,33 . Mackenzie et al 18 and Mitchell et al 25 used Dysarthria Impact Profile (DIP) 34 .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Systematic Review of Measures of Dysarthria Severity in Stroke Patients

Chiaramonte

Vecchio

2020

PM&R

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective To define methods to measure dysarthria due to stroke and guide physicians in delineating a diagnostic protocol using the best current strategies. Design Systematic review. Literature Survey A search was conducted on PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science to identify measurement methods for dysarthria severity in adults after stroke. Methods Two reviewers independently reviewed articles and came to a consensus about which ones to include. The authors excluded all duplicates, articles involving individuals with aphasia or other speech problems other than dysarthria, and articles unrelated to stroke. Articles were included if diagnostic measures were used to examine the effectiveness of speech rehabilitation in stroke patients. Synthesis The search identified 1154 articles with the keywords “stroke” OR “ictus” OR “cerebral vascular accident” AND “dysarthria” OR “Speech and Language Disorders” AND “diagnosis” OR “assessment.” The reviewers analyzed 86 full texts. There were 37 publications that met the criteria and were included in the systematic review. These articles were used to describe the main methods used for measuring the severity of stroke‐related dysarthria before and after speech rehabilitation. Conclusion Despite the range of diagnostic tools available, robust trials are lacking, and the diagnostic approaches are always different. More research is needed to find the best diagnostic methodologies and delineate a definitive diagnostic protocol.

show abstract