CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 110Neurobiology of Language and BilingualismStroke Rehabilitation and RecoveryLanguage Development and Disorders

Language Rehabilitation in Chronic Aphasia and Time Postonset: A Review of Single-Subject Data

Moss, Aviva, Nicholas, Marjorie·2006·Stroke
DOI 10.1161/01.str.0000249427.74970.15
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Background and Purpose— This article is a comprehensive review of aphasia treatment studies for the purpose of investigating the relationship between time postonset of aphasia and response to treatment for aphasia in chronic patients at ≥1 year after symptom onset. Methods— Studies that demonstrated treatment response (defined as a measurable change in task performance compared with a control task performance) through the use of single-subject design methodologies on measures of verbal output or auditory comprehension were selected. Individual subject data were extracted from the 23 studies that met criteria identifying the subjects as those who received direct continuous therapy for spoken language deficits and whose changes in response to therapy were measurable. Percent of maximum possible change was used as a measurement of outcome. Results— Nonparametric correlation statistics (Spearman ρ) and comparisons of group means (Kruskal–Wallis) were used to compare the relationship between time postonset and improvement. Time postonset at which treatment was initiated did not correlate with response to treatment. No significant differences in response to treatment were found between groups of patients according to times postonset. Conclusions— Time postonset is not related to response to treatment for aphasia in patients >1 year postonset of aphasia.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1161/01.str.0000249427.74970.15

Cites

33 of 33 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Recent case series have confirmed that time post onset is not related to response to treatment for aphasia in patients.

    “Recent case series [25] have confirmed what we have known for a while now, that, ‘Time post onset is not related to response to treatment for aphasia in patients’ [26].”

    From Aphasia Recovery: When, How and Who to Treat? (2018) · cites this paper as [26]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Moss, A., & Nicholas, M.
Affiliations
MGH Institute of Health Professions (US)
ORCID
Nicholas, Marjorie
Venue
Stroke
Publisher
Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
Published
2006-12
Volume
37
Issue
12
Pages
3043-3051
ISSN
  • 0039-2499 (ISSN-L)
  • 1524-4628
DOI
10.1161/01.str.0000249427.74970.15
OpenAlex
W2125481050
Cited by
110
References
33
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 6
FWCI
0.20
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Stroke (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Rehabilitation › Stroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Language Development and Disorders
Keywords
chronic aphasia, aphasia rehabilitation, treatment response, verbal output, auditory comprehension
MeSH terms
Aphasia, Chronic Disease, Humans, Language, Speech Therapy, Time Factors

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