↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Pharmacological treatment for aphasia following stroke

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2001
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (80th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
73 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
165 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Pharmacological treatment for aphasia following stroke
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2001
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd000424
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jenny Greener, Pam Enderby, Renata Whurr

Abstract

Aphasia describes language impairment associated with a brain lesion. The objective of this review was to assess the effects of drugs on language abilities when given to people with aphasia following stroke. We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Register (last searched: May 2001), and reference lists of relevant articles to December 1998. We also contacted academic institutions and other researchers to identify further published and unpublished trials. MEDLINE was searched from 1966-1998, and CINAHL from 1982-1998. We searched the International Journal of Disorders of Communication by hand (known by other names in the past), from 1969 to 1998. Randomised controlled trials comparing: ~bullet~Any drug given to improve language, versus no treatment, or versus placebo ~bullet~Any drug given to improve language versus speech and language therapy ~bullet~One drug given to improve language versus another drug given with the same aim The principal reviewer collected the data, and assessed the quality of the trials with independent data checking and methodological advice. If we could not perform a statistical combination of different studies, we sought missing data. Failing that we provided a description. We sought missing data from authors, or where appropriate, a drug company. We considered fifty two studies in detail, from which we identified ten trials suitable for the review. In most cases the methodological quality was unassessable, and only one trial reported sufficient detail for us to complete a description and analysis. This study did lose a large number of patients during its course. Drugs used in the trials identified were piracetam, bifemalane, piribedil, bromocriptine, idebenone, and Dextran 40. We found weak evidence that patients were more likely to have improved on any language measure at the end of the trial if they had received treatment with piracetam (odds ratio 0.46, 95% confidence interval 0.3 to 0.7). The evidence is considered weak because of the large numbers of drop outs from the trials identified, who were lost to follow up. Patients who were treated with piracetam were no more likely (considering statistical significance) than those who took a placebo to experience unwanted effects, including death (odds ratio 1.29, 95% confidence interval for difference 0.9 to 1.7). However, the differences in death rates between the two groups, even though not not statistically significant, do give rise to some concerns that there may be an increased risk of death from taking piracetam. We could not determine if drug treatment is more effective than speech and language therapy. We could not determine whether one drug is more effective than another. The main conclusion of this review is that drug treatment with piracetam may be effective in the treatment of aphasia after stroke. Further research is needed to explore the effects of drugs for aphasia, in particular piracetam. If a trial is done, this must be large enough to have adequate statistical power. The safety of the drug should be of primary interest. Researchers should examine the long term effects of this treatment, and whether it is more effective than speech and language therapy.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 165 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Unknown 162 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 32 19%
Student > Bachelor 19 12%
Researcher 18 11%
Student > Postgraduate 15 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 7%
Other 34 21%
Unknown 35 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 48 29%
Nursing and Health Professions 17 10%
Psychology 15 9%
Neuroscience 15 9%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 9 5%
Other 24 15%
Unknown 37 22%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 14 February 2020.
All research outputs
#2,669,818
of 16,968,502 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,319
of 11,600 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#51,874
of 271,201 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#102
of 199 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,968,502 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 84th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,600 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 24.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 271,201 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 199 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.