Systematic review of subjective memory measures to inform assessing memory limitations after stroke and stroke-related aphasia
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
AIM: Primary aims of this systematic review were to: (1) identify the range of subjective memory measures used in the stroke and stroke-related aphasia literature and (2) critically appraise their psychometric properties as well as (3) the methodological qualities of studies that included them, (4) investigate whether such measures provide an accurate reflection of memory impairments (i.e., in comparison to norms from age-matched, neurotypical participants), (5) document the representation of individuals with stroke-related aphasia, and (6) examine the extent to which subjective memory measures correlate with objective memory measures. METHODS: Systematic review of the literature from 1970 to June 2019 using a comprehensive range of relevant search terms in EMBASE, Medline, PsychINFO, SCOPUS, and Web of Science. Eligibility criteria were for studies to include adults who had suffered of clinical stroke, to report a subjective memory measure that was completed by the stroke survivors, to be reported in a peer-reviewed journal, and to be published in English or Dutch. Quality appraisal was carried out for the included studies as well as the subjective memory measures they employed. RESULTS: A total of 7,077 titles or abstracts were screened, with 41 studies included in the quantitative and qualitative synthesis. Twenty-six subjective memory measures were used in the included studies. The critical appraisal of their psychometric properties and the methodological quality of the included studies revealed significant shortcomings; for example, neurotypical participants were included in only 14 of the 41 studies. When statistical comparisons were made, different outcomes arose. Only eight studies statistically compared subjective with objective memory measures. CONCLUSIONS: This literature domain currently provides an unclear picture as to how memory limitations affect participation in stroke and stroke-related aphasia.IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATIONA broad range of subjective memory measures have been used to determine stroke survivors' perceptions of their everyday memory issues.Because of psychometric weaknesses such as inadequate reliability and cross-cultural validity among subjective memory measures, there remains a need to carefully review a given measure's properties to determine if it is appropriate for use with a given stroke survivor.Stroke survivors with aphasia have been infrequently included or inadequately described in studies of subjective memory measures, and thus how these individuals perceive their everyday memory abilities requires further investigation.Although the relationship between subjective and objective memory measures has been infrequently investigated by stroke researchers, both types of measures should be considered as they likely offer complementary rather than redundant information about stroke survivors' memory abilities.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,027 | 0,126 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,010 | 0,008 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,019 | 0,014 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,004 | 0,005 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,005 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».