Systematic review draws limited conclusions regarding the effectiveness of reading comprehension interventions for people with aphasia but offers guidance for future research and practicing clinicians1

Q2 Social Sciences

Evidence-Based Communication Assessment and Intervention Pub Date : 2021-10-02 DOI:10.1080/17489539.2021.2008657

R. Harrington, Aimee Dietz

{"title":"Systematic review draws limited conclusions regarding the effectiveness of reading comprehension interventions for people with aphasia but offers guidance for future research and practicing clinicians1","authors":"R. Harrington, Aimee Dietz","doi":"10.1080/17489539.2021.2008657","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Data sources: Studies that were used in this systematic review were located via Medline, PsychArticles, PsychInfo, and CINAHL, using a combination of Boolean search terms for population (aphasia, dysphasia), disability (alexia, dyslexia, reading, reading comprehension, functional reading), and treatment (therapy, treatment, intervention, training, remediation, and functional). The search produced 1,494 articles. After eliminating population and publication delimiters, duplicates, and articles that met exclusion criteria, 15 articles were identified for inclusion in the systematic review. Study selection and assessment: To identify articles appropriate for inclusion, authors used time limits (publication up to 2016), population and publication delimiters (adults, text in English, and peer-reviewed articles), exclusion criteria (no participants with disorders other than aphasia, specifically progressive diseases, dementia, tumors, or traumatic brain injury), and inclusion criteria (articles must include a reading comprehension measure as the primary outcome variable). Of the 15 studies selected, 10 were case studies. The quality of case studies was evaluated using the Single-Case Experimental Design+ (SCED+) Scale (Cherney et al., 2013). The additional five articles were randomized controlled trials (RCT), which were evaluated using the Physiotherapy Evidence Database+ (PEDro +) scale (Cherney et al., 2013; Herbert et al., 1998). The quality of each article was independently assessed by 2 of the authors. When disagreement occurred (90% initial agreement for case studies, 92% initial agreement for RCTs), discrepancies were 1Abstracted from: Purdy, M., Coppens, P., Madden, E. B., Mozeiko, J., Patterson, J., Wallace, S. E., & Freed, D. (2019). Reading comprehension treatment in aphasia: A systematic review. Aphasiology, 33(6), 629–651. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 02687038.2018.1482405 Source of funding and declaration of interests: Funding not reported. No conflicts of interest declared. For correspondence: adietz3@gsu.edu; Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders, Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA Evidence-Based Communication Assessment and Intervention, 2021 Vol. 15, No. 4, 207–213, https://doi.org/10.1080/17489539.2021.2008657","PeriodicalId":39977,"journal":{"name":"Evidence-Based Communication Assessment and Intervention","volume":"108 1","pages":"207 - 213"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Evidence-Based Communication Assessment and Intervention","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17489539.2021.2008657","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Data sources: Studies that were used in this systematic review were located via Medline, PsychArticles, PsychInfo, and CINAHL, using a combination of Boolean search terms for population (aphasia, dysphasia), disability (alexia, dyslexia, reading, reading comprehension, functional reading), and treatment (therapy, treatment, intervention, training, remediation, and functional). The search produced 1,494 articles. After eliminating population and publication delimiters, duplicates, and articles that met exclusion criteria, 15 articles were identified for inclusion in the systematic review. Study selection and assessment: To identify articles appropriate for inclusion, authors used time limits (publication up to 2016), population and publication delimiters (adults, text in English, and peer-reviewed articles), exclusion criteria (no participants with disorders other than aphasia, specifically progressive diseases, dementia, tumors, or traumatic brain injury), and inclusion criteria (articles must include a reading comprehension measure as the primary outcome variable). Of the 15 studies selected, 10 were case studies. The quality of case studies was evaluated using the Single-Case Experimental Design+ (SCED+) Scale (Cherney et al., 2013). The additional five articles were randomized controlled trials (RCT), which were evaluated using the Physiotherapy Evidence Database+ (PEDro +) scale (Cherney et al., 2013; Herbert et al., 1998). The quality of each article was independently assessed by 2 of the authors. When disagreement occurred (90% initial agreement for case studies, 92% initial agreement for RCTs), discrepancies were 1Abstracted from: Purdy, M., Coppens, P., Madden, E. B., Mozeiko, J., Patterson, J., Wallace, S. E., & Freed, D. (2019). Reading comprehension treatment in aphasia: A systematic review. Aphasiology, 33(6), 629–651. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 02687038.2018.1482405 Source of funding and declaration of interests: Funding not reported. No conflicts of interest declared. For correspondence: adietz3@gsu.edu; Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders, Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA Evidence-Based Communication Assessment and Intervention, 2021 Vol. 15, No. 4, 207–213, https://doi.org/10.1080/17489539.2021.2008657

查看原文本刊更多论文

关于阅读理解干预对失语症患者的有效性，系统综述得出的结论有限，但为未来的研究和临床实践提供了指导1

数据来源:本系统综述中使用的研究通过Medline、PsychArticles、PsychInfo和CINAHL找到，使用布尔搜索词组合搜索人群(失语、言语障碍)、残疾(失读症、诵读困难、阅读、阅读理解、功能性阅读)和治疗(治疗、治疗、干预、培训、补救和功能性)。搜索产生了1494篇文章。在排除人群和出版物分隔符、重复和符合排除标准的文章后，确定了15篇文章纳入系统评价。研究选择和评估:为了确定适合纳入的文章，作者使用了时间限制(出版至2016年)、人群和出版物分隔符(成人、英文文本和同行评审的文章)、排除标准(除失语症外无其他疾病，特别是进行性疾病、痴呆、肿瘤或创伤性脑损伤)和纳入标准(文章必须包括阅读理解测量作为主要结局变量)。在入选的15项研究中，有10项是个案研究。案例研究的质量采用单案例实验设计+ (SCED+)量表进行评估(Cherney et al.， 2013)。另外5篇文章为随机对照试验(RCT)，采用物理治疗证据数据库+ (PEDro +)量表进行评估(Cherney et al.， 2013;Herbert et al.， 1998)。每篇文章的质量由2位作者独立评估。当出现分歧时(案例研究的初始一致性为90%，随机对照试验的初始一致性为92%)，差异1摘要自:Purdy, M.， Coppens, P.， Madden, E. B.， Mozeiko, J.， Patterson, J.， Wallace, S. E.和Freed, D.(2019)。失语症的阅读理解治疗:系统回顾。失语学杂志，33(6)，629-651。https://doi.org/10.1080/ 02687038.2018.1482405资金来源及利益声明:资金未报。没有宣布利益冲突。通信:adietz3@gsu.edu;乔治亚州立大学传播科学与障碍系，亚特兰大，乔治亚州循证传播评估与干预，2021卷15，第4期，207-213,https://doi.org/10.1080/17489539.2021.2008657

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Evidence-Based Communication Assessment and Intervention Social Sciences-Linguistics and Language

CiteScore

1.60

自引率

0.00%

发文量

期刊介绍： Evidence-Based Communication Assessment and Intervention (EBCAI) brings together professionals who work in clinical and educational practice as well as researchers from all disciplines to promote evidence-based practice (EBP) in serving individuals with communication impairments. The primary aims of EBCAI are to: Promote evidence-based practice (EBP) in communication assessment and intervention; Appraise the latest and best communication assessment and intervention studies so as to facilitate the use of research findings in clinical and educational practice; Provide a forum for discussions that advance EBP; and Disseminate research on EBP. We target speech-language pathologists, special educators, regular educators, applied behavior analysts, clinical psychologists, physical therapists, and occupational therapists who serve children or adults with communication impairments.