4.2 Article

Post-stroke aphasia prognosis: a review of patient-related and stroke-related factors

Journal

JOURNAL OF EVALUATION IN CLINICAL PRACTICE
Volume 18, Issue 3, Pages 689-694

Publisher

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2753.2011.01650.x

Keywords

aphasia; prognosis; recovery

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Rationale, aims and objectives Recovery of language function in individuals with post-stroke aphasia is associated with a variety of patient and stroke-related indices. Amidst a complex interaction of a multitude of variables, clinicians are faced with the arduous challenge of predicting aphasia recovery patterns and subsequently, long-term outcomes in these individuals. Unfortunately, predictive factors are highly variable making prognosis of aphasia recovery difficult. Therefore, the objective of this review was to assess the influence of patient-related and stroke-related factors on language recovery in individuals with post-stroke aphasia. Methods We completed a literature review to assess and identify evidence-based patient and stroke-related variables shown to be influential in aphasia recovery. Results A range of patient-related (gender, handedness, age, education, socio-economic status and intelligence) and stroke-related indices (initial severity, lesion site and lesion size) were identified as potential influential factors to post-stroke aphasia recovery. Initial severity of aphasia emerged as the factor most predictive of long-term aphasia recovery. Other influential factors of post-stroke language recovery included lesion site and size. Conclusions Stroke-related factors, including aphasia severity, lesion site and lesion size, appear most critical to post-stroke aphasia recovery. The findings presented in this review offer clinicians an evidenced-based framework to assist in prediction of post-stroke aphasia recovery patterns and subsequent long-term functional communication outcomes.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available