Search

Aphasia has a large impact on the quality of life and adds significantly to the costs of stroke care. Early recognition of aphasia in stroke patients is important for prognostication and well-timed treatment planning. We aimed to identify available screening tests for differentiating between aphasic and non-aphasic stroke patients, and to evaluate test accuracy, reliability, and feasibility. We searched PubMed, EMbase, Web of Science, and PsycINFO for published studies on screening tests aimed at assessing aphasia in stroke patients. The reference lists of the selected articles were scanned, and several experts were contacted to detect additional references. Of each screening test, we estimated the sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratio of a positive test, likelihood ratio of a negative test, and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and rated the degree of bias of the validation method. We included ten studies evaluating eight screening tests. There was a large variation across studies regarding sample size, patient characteristics, and reference tests used for validation. Many papers failed to report on the consecutiveness of patient inclusion, time between aphasia onset and administration of the screening test, and blinding. Of the three studies that were rated as having an intermediate or low risk of bias, the DOR was highest for the Language Screening Test and ScreeLing. Several screening tools for aphasia in stroke are available, but many tests have not been verified properly. Methodologically sound validation studies of aphasia screening tests are needed to determine their usefulness in clinical practice.

For the diagnosis of aphasia early after stroke, several screening tests are available to support clinical judgment. None of these tests enables the clinician to assess the underlying linguistic deficits, i. e. semantic, phonological and syntactic deficits, which provides indispensable information for early therapeutic decisions. The ScreeLing was designed as a screening test to detect semantic, phonological and syntactic deficits. The ScreeLing's sensitivity, specificity and accuracy in detecting aphasia and semantic, phonological and syntactic deficits were determined.The ScreeLing was validated in an acute stroke population against a combined reference diagnosis of aphasia (aphasia according to at least two of the following measures:ne urologist's judgment, linguist's judgment, Tokentest-score). The three ScreeLing subtests were validated in the aphasic population against the presence or absence of a semantic, phonological and/or syntactic deficit according to an experienced clinical linguist.From a consecutive series of 215 stroke patients, 63 patients were included. The ScreeLing was an accurate test for the detection of aphasia (0.92),with a sensitivity of 86% and specificity of 96%. Sensitivity of subtests was 62 % for semantics, 54 % for phonology and 42 % for syntax. Specificity was 100 % for semantics and phonology and 80 % for syntax, and accuracy 0.84 for semantics, 0.87 for phonology and 0.64 for syntax.The ScreeLing is an accurate test that can be easily administered and scored to detect aphasia in the first weeks after stroke. Furthermore, the ScreeLing is suitable for revealing underlying linguistic deficits, especially semantic and phonological deficits.

Semantics, phonology, and syntax are essential elements of aphasia diagnosis and treatment. Until now, these linguistic components have not been specifically addressed in follow-up studies of aphasia recovery after stroke. The aim of this observational prospective follow-up study was to investigate semantic, phonological, and syntactic recovery in aphasic stroke patients. In addition, we investigated the recovery of verbal communication and of aphasia severity. We assessed 147 aphasic patients at 1, 2, and 6 weeks, 3 and 6 months, and 1 year after stroke with the ScreeLing, a screening test for detecting deficits on the three main linguistic components, the aphasia severity rating scale (ASRS), a measure of verbal communication, and the Token test, a measure of aphasia severity. We investigated the differences in scores between the six time points with mixed models. Semantics and syntax improved up to 6 weeks (p < 0.001) after stroke, and phonology up to 3 months (p ≤ 0.001). ASRS improved up to 6 months (p < 0.05) and the Token test up to 3 months (p < 0.001). We conclude that in aphasia after stroke, various linguistic components have a different recovery pattern, with phonology showing the longest period of recovery that paralleled aphasia severity, as measured with the Token test. The improvement of verbal communication continues after the stabilization of the recovery of the linguistic components.