The impact of stroke: are people with aphasia different to those without?

Hilari, Katerina

doi:10.3109/09638288.2010.508829

Cited by 257 publications

(166 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

147

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Similar conclusions were drawn by Gialanella [24]. Hilari in the study published in 2011, which compared patients with and without aphasia, found that patients with aphasia are less active, and their quality of life is worse than patients without aphasia, even if their functional state, welfare and social support are comparable [25]. The severity of aphasia is a strong predictor of long-term mortality and observed during a period of 12 months dependency of patients with aphasia compared with those without aphasia [26].…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 73%

The predictive value of selected functional and clinical parameters in stroke rehabilitation

Kasprzak

Nyka²,

Chwojnicki³

et al. 2017

Medical Research Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 73%

The predictive value of selected functional and clinical parameters in stroke rehabilitation

Kasprzak

Nyka²,

Chwojnicki³

et al. 2017

Medical Research Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In contrast, internal validity, interrater reliability, and the time required for scale completion were determined in "acute" patients. Finally, LAST was primarily designed to evaluate language impairment, but it is now well recognized that the impact on daily life activities of such impairments extends beyond these actual impairment, 36 and tools have recently been developed to specifically address this issue. 37,38 It would be interesting to test LAST against such quality-oflife scales.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Validation of a New Language Screening Tool for Patients With Acute Stroke

Flamand-Roze

Falissard

Roze

et al. 2011

Stroke

117

122

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and Purpose-Standard aphasia scales such as the Boston Diagnosis Aphasia Evaluation are inappropriate for use in acute stroke. Likewise, global stroke scales do not reliably detect aphasia, and existing brief aphasia screening scales suitable for patients with stroke have several limitations. The objective of this study was to generate and validate a bedside language screening tool, the Language Screening Test, suitable for use in the emergency setting. Methods-The Language Screening Test comprises 5 subtests and a total of 15 items. To avoid retest bias, we created 2 parallel versions of the scale. We report the equivalence of the 2 versions, their internal and external validity, and their interrater reliability. We validated the scale by administering it to 300 consecutive patients within 24 hours after admission to our stroke unit and to 104 stabilized patients with and without aphasia using the Boston Diagnosis Aphasia Evaluation as a reference. Results-The 2 versions of the Language Screening Test were equivalent with an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.96.Internal validity was good; none of the items showed a floor or ceiling effect with no redundancy and good internal consistency (Cronbach ␣ 0.88). External validation against the Boston Diagnosis Aphasia Evaluation showed a sensitivity of 0.98 and a specificity of 1. Interrater agreement was near perfect (intraclass correlation coefficient, 0.998).The median time to complete the Language Screening Test was approximately 2 minutes. Importantly, the Language Screening Test does not need to be administered by a speech and language therapist. Conclusions-This comprehensively validated language rating scale is simple and rapid, making it a useful tool for bedside evaluation of patients with acute stroke in routine clinical practice. (Stroke. 2011;42:1224-1229.)

show abstract

“…It is also clear in the studies that the aphasic has a higher number of depression symptoms, difficulties in performing daily activities, and higher level of dependence (15,20,27,29,30) . Moreover, the aphasic's condition limits social relations (7,27) , which explains the findings.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%