How do we measure dysarthria after stroke? A systematic review to guide the core outcome set for dysarthria
Authors:
Mitchell, C., El Kouaissi, S., Duncan-Zaleski, M., Bowen, A., Conroy, P., Whelan, B. M., Wallace, S. J. J., Cheyne, J., and Kirkham, J. J.
Abstract:
OBJECTIVES: A consensus study to establish a Core Outcome Set for dysarthria after stroke identified four key outcome domains that should be measured in research and clinical practice: (1) intelligibility of speech, (2) ability to participate in conversations, (3) living well with dysarthria and (4) communication partners skills and knowledge (where relevant). This review aimed to systematically identify corresponding measurement instruments and to examine their clinical utility and psychometric properties.
DESIGN: Systematic review conducted in alignment with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines.
DATA SOURCES: CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE, PsycInfo and Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register, CENTRAL, Linguistics and Language Behavioral Abstracts (LLBA). Major trials registers: WHO ICTRP, ISRCTN registry and ClinicalTrials.gov searched March 2024.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: We included trials that developed or used measurement instruments for poststroke dysarthria. We identified studies that could be included in an update of the Cochrane systematic review of interventions for non-progressive dysarthria to identify what measurement instruments were used in therapy trials for poststroke dysarthria.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Records were screened independently by three authors. Psychometric data were extracted, by two authors, from included studies and methodological quality was evaluated using Consensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) and Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) guidance. Assessment of clinical utility followed Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) guidance.
RESULTS: Following screening, 19 publications reporting 12 measurement instruments were identified. According to COSMIN standards, all 19 publications were rated as having low, very low or unknown quality of evidence. Three measurement instruments were identified as having the most relevant clinical utility to the population, the highest quality of evidence and had the potential to measure some specific aspects from three of the four agreed domains, intelligibility, conversations and living well with dysarthria from the patient and clinician perspective. These were the Frenchay Dysarthria Assessment II, the Communication Outcomes After Stroke Scale and the Therapy Outcome Measures for Dysarthria.
CONCLUSIONS: This review provides a comprehensive overview and appraisal of dysarthria measurement instruments to align with a Core Outcome Set. We only included English language-based measurement instruments. Many dysarthria measurement instruments were developed for non-stroke populations, including progressive dysarthria, with limited psychometric data for stroke. Measurement instruments with uncertain quality of evidence can still be considered for inclusion with a Core Outcome Set and three have been suggested. There is a need for further psychometric testing of these and the development of new measurement instruments to cover all aspects of intelligibility, conversations, living well with dysarthria and communication partner skills.