School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
School of Medical and Health Sciences, Edith Cowan University, Joondalup, Western Australia, Australia.
PLoS One. 2018 Mar 22;13(3):e0194143. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0194143. eCollection 2018.
Accurate aphasia diagnosis is important in stroke care. A wide range of language tests are available and include informal assessments, tests developed by healthcare institutions and commercially published tests available for purchase in pre-packaged kits. The psychometrics of these tests are often reported online or within the purchased test manuals, not the peer-reviewed literature, therefore the diagnostic capabilities of these measures have not been systematically evaluated. This review aimed to identify both commercial and non-commercial language tests and tests used in stroke care and to examine the diagnostic capabilities of all identified measures in diagnosing aphasia in stroke populations.
Language tests were identified through a systematic search of 161 publisher databases, professional and resource websites and language tests reported to be used in stroke care. Two independent reviewers evaluated test manuals or associated resources for cohort or cross-sectional studies reporting the tests' diagnostic capabilities (sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratios or diagnostic odds ratios) in differentiating aphasic and non-aphasic stroke populations.
Fifty-six tests met the study eligibility criteria. Six "non-specialist" brief screening tests reported sensitivity and specificity information, however none of these measures reported to meet the specific diagnostic needs of speech pathologists. The 50 remaining measures either did not report validity data (n = 7); did not compare patient test performance with a comparison group (n = 17); included non-stroke participants within their samples (n = 23) or did not compare stroke patient performance against a language reference standard (n = 3). Diagnostic sensitivity analysis was completed for six speech pathology measures (WAB, PICA, CADL-2, ASHA-FACS, Adult FAVRES and EFA-4), however all studies compared aphasic performance with that of non-stroke healthy controls and were consequently excluded from the review.
No speech pathology test was found which reported diagnostic data for identifying aphasia in stroke populations. A diagnostically validated post-stroke aphasia test is needed.
准确的失语症诊断在脑卒中护理中非常重要。目前有多种语言测试可供选择,包括非正规评估、医疗机构开发的测试以及可在预包装试剂盒中购买的商业出版测试。这些测试的心理测量学通常在网上或购买的测试手册中报告,而不是在同行评议的文献中报告,因此这些措施的诊断能力尚未得到系统评估。本综述旨在确定商业和非商业语言测试以及在脑卒中护理中使用的测试,并检查所有已确定的测试在诊断脑卒中患者失语症方面的诊断能力。
通过对 161 个出版商数据库、专业和资源网站以及报告用于脑卒中护理的语言测试的系统搜索,确定了语言测试。两名独立的审查员评估了测试手册或相关资源,以确定报告测试诊断能力(敏感性、特异性、似然比或诊断优势比)的队列或横断面研究,以区分失语症和非失语症脑卒中患者。
56 项测试符合研究入选标准。六项“非专业”简短筛查测试报告了敏感性和特异性信息,但这些措施中没有一项报告符合言语病理学家的具体诊断需求。其余 50 项措施要么没有报告有效性数据(n = 7);没有将患者的测试表现与对照组进行比较(n = 17);样本中包含非脑卒中参与者(n = 23)或没有将脑卒中患者的表现与语言参考标准进行比较(n = 3)。对六项言语病理测量(WAB、PICA、CADL-2、ASHA-FACS、成人 FAVRES 和 EFA-4)进行了诊断敏感性分析,但所有研究均将失语症患者的表现与非脑卒中健康对照组进行比较,因此均被排除在综述之外。
未发现报告用于识别脑卒中患者失语症的言语病理测试。需要一种经过诊断验证的脑卒中后失语症测试。