失语症评估工具的质量:系统回顾。

IF 2.7 3区 医学 Q3 NEUROSCIENCES
Francescaroberta Panuccio, Giulia Rossi, Anita Di Nuzzo, Ilaria Ruotolo, Giada Cianfriglia, Rachele Simeon, Giovanni Sellitto, Anna Berardi, Giovanni Galeoto
{"title":"失语症评估工具的质量:系统回顾。","authors":"Francescaroberta Panuccio, Giulia Rossi, Anita Di Nuzzo, Ilaria Ruotolo, Giada Cianfriglia, Rachele Simeon, Giovanni Sellitto, Anna Berardi, Giovanni Galeoto","doi":"10.3390/brainsci15030271","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background/Objectives</b>: Aphasia is a neurological condition affecting the ability to understand and/or express language fluently and accurately, and can occur following stroke, traumatic injuries, or other brain pathologies. The aim of the following study was to provide clinicians and researchers information regarding the existing assessment tools to assess aphasia. <b>Methods</b>: For this Systematic Review, PubMed, CINAHL, Web of Science, and Scopus were searched for articles published up to August 2024. Authors independently identified eligible studies based on predefined inclusion criteria and extracted data. The study quality and risk of bias were assessed using the Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) checklist. <b>Results:</b> Of the 1278 publications identified and screened, 238 studies fell within the inclusion criteria and were critically reviewed, and 164 assessment tools were found and divided into 8 main domains; the most used tools were the Language Screening Test (LAST), the Stroke and Aphasia Quality of Life Scale-39 (SAQOL-39), the Oxford Cognitive Screen (OCS), and the Token test. <b>Conclusions</b>: This review has emphasized the need for agreement among researchers as to which tool must be studied or adapted to other national contexts to develop universal norms and standards.</p>","PeriodicalId":9095,"journal":{"name":"Brain Sciences","volume":"15 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11940547/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Quality of Assessment Tools for Aphasia: A Systematic Review.\",\"authors\":\"Francescaroberta Panuccio, Giulia Rossi, Anita Di Nuzzo, Ilaria Ruotolo, Giada Cianfriglia, Rachele Simeon, Giovanni Sellitto, Anna Berardi, Giovanni Galeoto\",\"doi\":\"10.3390/brainsci15030271\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><b>Background/Objectives</b>: Aphasia is a neurological condition affecting the ability to understand and/or express language fluently and accurately, and can occur following stroke, traumatic injuries, or other brain pathologies. The aim of the following study was to provide clinicians and researchers information regarding the existing assessment tools to assess aphasia. <b>Methods</b>: For this Systematic Review, PubMed, CINAHL, Web of Science, and Scopus were searched for articles published up to August 2024. Authors independently identified eligible studies based on predefined inclusion criteria and extracted data. The study quality and risk of bias were assessed using the Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) checklist. <b>Results:</b> Of the 1278 publications identified and screened, 238 studies fell within the inclusion criteria and were critically reviewed, and 164 assessment tools were found and divided into 8 main domains; the most used tools were the Language Screening Test (LAST), the Stroke and Aphasia Quality of Life Scale-39 (SAQOL-39), the Oxford Cognitive Screen (OCS), and the Token test. <b>Conclusions</b>: This review has emphasized the need for agreement among researchers as to which tool must be studied or adapted to other national contexts to develop universal norms and standards.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9095,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Brain Sciences\",\"volume\":\"15 3\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-03-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11940547/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Brain Sciences\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci15030271\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"NEUROSCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Brain Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci15030271","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"NEUROSCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景/目的:失语症是一种影响流利准确地理解和/或表达语言能力的神经系统疾病,可发生在中风、创伤性损伤或其他脑部病变之后。以下研究的目的是为临床医生和研究人员提供有关评估失语症的现有评估工具的信息。方法:本系统综述检索PubMed、CINAHL、Web of Science和Scopus,检索截止到2024年8月发表的文章。作者根据预定义的纳入标准和提取的数据独立地确定了符合条件的研究。使用基于共识的健康测量工具选择标准(COSMIN)检查表评估研究质量和偏倚风险。结果:在鉴定和筛选的1278份出版物中,238项研究符合纳入标准并进行了严格审查,发现164种评估工具并分为8个主要领域;最常用的工具是语言筛选测试(LAST),中风和失语生活质量量表-39 (SAQOL-39),牛津认知屏幕(OCS)和Token测试。结论:本综述强调了研究人员之间必须就必须研究或适应其他国家背景的工具达成协议,以制定普遍规范和标准。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Quality of Assessment Tools for Aphasia: A Systematic Review.

Background/Objectives: Aphasia is a neurological condition affecting the ability to understand and/or express language fluently and accurately, and can occur following stroke, traumatic injuries, or other brain pathologies. The aim of the following study was to provide clinicians and researchers information regarding the existing assessment tools to assess aphasia. Methods: For this Systematic Review, PubMed, CINAHL, Web of Science, and Scopus were searched for articles published up to August 2024. Authors independently identified eligible studies based on predefined inclusion criteria and extracted data. The study quality and risk of bias were assessed using the Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) checklist. Results: Of the 1278 publications identified and screened, 238 studies fell within the inclusion criteria and were critically reviewed, and 164 assessment tools were found and divided into 8 main domains; the most used tools were the Language Screening Test (LAST), the Stroke and Aphasia Quality of Life Scale-39 (SAQOL-39), the Oxford Cognitive Screen (OCS), and the Token test. Conclusions: This review has emphasized the need for agreement among researchers as to which tool must be studied or adapted to other national contexts to develop universal norms and standards.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Brain Sciences
Brain Sciences Neuroscience-General Neuroscience
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
9.10%
发文量
1472
审稿时长
18.71 days
期刊介绍: Brain Sciences (ISSN 2076-3425) is a peer-reviewed scientific journal that publishes original articles, critical reviews, research notes and short communications in the areas of cognitive neuroscience, developmental neuroscience, molecular and cellular neuroscience, neural engineering, neuroimaging, neurolinguistics, neuropathy, systems neuroscience, and theoretical and computational neuroscience. Our aim is to encourage scientists to publish their experimental and theoretical results in as much detail as possible. There is no restriction on the length of the papers. The full experimental details must be provided so that the results can be reproduced. Electronic files or software regarding the full details of the calculation and experimental procedure, if unable to be published in a normal way, can be deposited as supplementary material.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信