The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Aphasia after Stroke: Type, Severity and Prognosis
Abstract
Aim: To determine the types, severity and evolution of aphasia in unselected, acute stroke patients and evaluate potential predictors for language outcome 1 year after stroke. Methods: 270 acute stroke patients with aphasia (203 with first-ever strokes) were included consecutively and prospectively from three hospitals in Copenhagen, Denmark, and assessed with the Western Aphasia Battery. The assessment was repeated 1 year after stroke. Results: The frequencies of the different types of aphasia in acute first-ever stroke were: global 32%, Broca’s 12%, isolation 2%, transcortical motor 2%, Wernicke’s 16%, transcortical sensory 7%, conduction 5% and anomic 25%. These figures are not substantially different from what has been found in previous studies of more or less selected populations. The type of aphasia always changed to a less severe form during the first year. Nonfluent aphasia could evolve into fluent aphasia (e.g., global to Wernicke’s and Broca’s to anomic), whereas a fluent aphasia never evolved into a nonfluent aphasia. One year after stroke, the following frequencies were found: global 7%, Broca’s 13%, isolation 0%, transcortical motor 1%, Wernicke’s 5%, transcortical sensory 0%, conduction 6% and anomic 29%. The distribution of aphasia types in acute and chronic aphasia is, thus, quite different. The outcome for language function was predicted by initial severity of the aphasia and by the initial stroke severity (assessed by the Scandinavian Stroke Scale), but not by age, sex or type of aphasia. Thus, a scoring of general stroke severity helps to improve the accuracy of the prognosis for the language function. One year after stroke, fluent aphasics were older than nonfluent aphasics, whereas such a difference was not found in the acute phase.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Poststroke Aphasia Frequency, Recovery, and Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Flowers, H. L., Skoretz, S. A., Silver, F. L., Rochon, E., Fang, J., Flamand-Roze, C., & Martino, R. (2016) · Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation · doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2016.03.006 · Cited by 432
The human inferior parietal lobule in stereotaxic space
Caspers, S., Eickhoff, S. B., Geyer, S., Scheperjans, F., Mohlberg, H., Zilles, K., & Amunts, K. (2008) · Brain Structure and Function · doi:10.1007/s00429-008-0195-z · Cited by 395
Incidence and Profile of Inpatient Stroke-Induced Aphasia in Ontario, Canada
Dickey, L., Kagan, A., Lindsay, M. P., Fang, J., Rowland, A., & Black, S. (2010) · Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation · doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2009.09.020 · Cited by 297
Flowers, H. L., Silver, F. L., Fang, J., Rochon, E., & Martino, R. (2013) · Journal of Communication Disorders · doi:10.1016/j.jcomdis.2013.04.001 · Cited by 249
Predicting outcome and recovery after stroke with lesions extracted from MRI images
Hope, T. M. H., Seghier, M. L., Leff, A. P., & Price, C. J. (2013) · NeuroImage: Clinical · doi:10.1016/j.nicl.2013.03.005 · Cited by 243
Metadata
- Authors
- Pedersen, P. M., Vinter, K., & Olsen, T. S.
- Venue
- Cerebrovascular Diseases
- Publisher
- S. Karger AG
- Published
- 2003-12-22
- Volume
- 17
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 35-43
- ISSN
- 1015-9770 (ISSN-L)
- 1421-9786
- OpenAlex
- W1981889376
- Cited by
- 622
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 3.07
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Aphasia after Stroke: Type, Severity and Prognosis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1159/000073896
- The paper
- Pedersen, P. M., Vinter, K., & Olsen, T. S. (2004). Aphasia after Stroke: Type, Severity and Prognosis. Cerebrovascular Diseases. https://doi.org/10.1159/000073896
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.