Documentos de Académico
Documentos de Profesional
Documentos de Cultura
Title : A comparison of aphasia therapy outcomes before and after a Very Early
Rehabilitation programme following stroke
P : Peserta dalam penelitian ini ada 2 bagian yaitu VER Cohort sejumlah 20 orang : Peserta
yang diidentifikasi dari pasien yang dirawat Rumah Sakit Royal Perth (RPH) atau
Rumah Sakit Sir Charles Gairdner (SCGH) di Perth metropolitan, Australia Barat
antara bulan Desember 2008 dan September 2009. Kedua fasilitas tersebut adalah
rumah sakit perawatan akut dengan penerimaan di atas 400 kasus stroke setiap
tahunnya. Rehabilitasi subakut spesifik Stroke disediakan oleh RPH- RS Rehabilitasi
Rumah Sakit Shenton dan Unit Rehabilitasi Stroke Stroke Osborne Park (OPH), sesuai
kebutuhan. Control Cohort: Participants were recruited from RPH, SCGH and
Fremantle Hospital (FH) between 2000 and 2003 sejumlah 27 orang.
I : VER (intervension cohort ) : Peserta dalam penelitian ini menerima terapi kelompok.
Terapi kelompok terdiri dari Constraint Induced Aphasia Therapy (CIAT)
(Pulvermuller et al., 2001) dalam dosis yang dimodifikasi. Terapi Individu terdiri dari
Semantic Feature Therapy (SFT) (Boyle & Coelho 1995), Cued Naming therapy
(Nettleton & Lesser 1991), Lexical-semantic (BOX) therapy (Visch-Brink, Bajema &
vande Sandt-Koenderman (1997), Mapping therapy (Schwartz et al. 1994) and/or
Phonological Feature Therapy (Raymer et al. 1993).
Not
No. Item Yes No Unclear
aplicable
1 Were the two groups similar and recruited from the
same population?
Were the exposures measured similarly to assign people to both
2 exposed and unexposed groups?
3 Was the exposure measured in a valid and reliable way?
4 Were confounding factors identified?
5 Were strategies to deal with confounding factors stated?
6
Were the groups/participants free of the outcome at the start of the
study (or at the moment of exposure)?
7 Were the outcomes measured in a valid and reliable way?
8
Was the follow up time reported and sufficient to be long enough
for outcomes to occur?
9
Was follow up complete, and if not, were the reasons to loss to
follow up described and explored?
10 Were strategies to address incomplete follow up utilized?
11 Was appropriate statistical analysis used?
Overall appraisal : include exclude seek further info
Comments (Including reason for exclusion) : Penelitian menunjukan bahwa Hasil yang lebih
baik pada aspek Aphasia Quotient & a measure of communicative efficiency pada
pasien aphasia ketika di rehabitasi secara dini daripada perawatan seperti biasanya.
Selain itu saya menemukan bahwa peneliti tidak menjelaskan atau strategi untuk
mengurahi efek faktor-faktor pengganggu yang kemungkinan bisa mempengaruhi hasil.
Ukuran sampel masih terlalu kecil serta rentang follow up di naikkan dari waktu follow
up yang ada. Rekrutmen partisipan antara kohort kontrol(2000-2003) dan kohort
intervensi(2008-2009) rentangnya sangat jauh sehingga memungkinkan adanya data
yang bias.