An updated systematic review of stroke clinical practice guidelines to inform aphasia management

Background: Aphasia is a common consequence of stroke, and people who live with this condition experience poor outcomes. Adherence to clinical practice guidelines can promote high-quality service delivery and optimize patient outcomes. However, there are currently no high-quality guidelines specific to post-stroke aphasia management. Aims: To identify and evaluate recommendations from high-quality stroke guidelines that can inform aphasia management. Summary of review: We conducted an updated systematic review in accordance with PRISMA guidelines to identify high-quality clinical guidelines published between January 2015 and October 2022. Primary searches were performed using electronic databases: PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Web of Science. Gray literature searches were conducted using Google Scholar, guideline databases, and stroke websites. Clinical practice guidelines were evaluated using the Appraisal of Guidelines and Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) tool. Recommendations were extracted from high-quality guidelines (scored > 66.7% on Domain 3: “Rigor of Development”), classified as aphasia-specific or aphasia-related, and categorized into clinical practice areas. Evidence ratings and source citations were assessed, and similar recommendations were grouped. Twenty-three stroke clinical practice guidelines were identified and 9 (39%) met our criteria for rigor of development. From these guidelines, 82 recommendations for aphasia management were extracted: 31 were aphasia-specific, 51 aphasia-related, 67 evidence-based, and 15 consensus-based. Conclusion: More than half of stroke clinical practice guidelines identified did not meet our criteria for rigorous development. We identified 9 high-quality guidelines and 82 recommendations to inform aphasia management. Most recommendations were aphasia-related; aphasia-specific recommendation gaps were identified in three clinical practice areas: “accessing community supports,” “return to work, leisure, driving,” and “interprofessional practice.”