No abstract

Background and Purpose-One in 3 stroke survivors has aphasia (impaired language comprehension and expressive abilities). Conventionally, depression diagnosis uses language-based methods. We aimed to systematically review methods that have been used to diagnose depression and adaptations to these methods intended for people with aphasia. Methods-We systematically reviewed stroke studies (to January 2006) that included a depression diagnosis and individuals with aphasia. We extracted data related to depression diagnostic methods used for individuals with/without aphasia. We sought clarification from authors when required. Results-A total of 60 studies included people with aphasia. Almost half the studies (29/60; 48%) adapted their main depression diagnostic method (most typically a clinical interview and published criteria) for individuals with aphasia. Adaptive methods included: using informants (relatives or staff), clinical observation, modifying questions and visual analogue scales. Evidence of the validity or reliability of these adaptations was rarely reported. However, use of informants or clinical observation did achieve the inclusion of most people with aphasia in the diagnosis of depression. Remaining studies, that did not report adaptive methods, suggested that conventional language-based methods are suitable for individuals with only 'mild' aphasia. Conclusions-People with aphasia can be and have been included in depression diagnostic assessments. However, we suggest that depression and language experts collaborate to develop a more valid method of depression diagnosis for patients with aphasia that has good reliability. (Stroke.

No abstract

Background/Aims: A third of individuals are depressed following stroke. A similar proportion have aphasia. The extent of their inclusion in depression following stroke studies affects the generalizability of findings. Methods: We systematically reviewed published studies (to December 2005) that diagnosed depression following stroke. We identified aphasia screening methods, aphasia exclusion and inclusion criteria and respective numbers of individuals with aphasia. Results: Of 129 studies (n = 19,183), aphasia screening methods were only reported by 57 (31 described a published aphasia-specific tool). No mention of aphasia was made in 13 studies. Most studies (92, 71%) reported some exclusion of people with aphasia (49 reported how many: n = 3,082, range = 2–554). Almost half of the studies (60, 47%) actually reported participants with aphasia (37 specified numbers: n = 829, range = 5–60). Aphasia exclusion or inclusion was not associated with sample source (community, acute hospital, other) or study purpose (observation, intervention, screening). Studies that reported screening for aphasia were more likely to describe aphasia exclusion and inclusion criteria and include participants with aphasia. Conclusion: Aphasia screening, exclusion and inclusion criteria reporting across studies of depression following stroke has been highly inconsistent. This impairs the interpretation of generalizability. Improved aphasia screening and reporting of exclusion and inclusion criteria are urgently recommended.