Accuracy of rating scales for evaluating aphasic patients’ psychological aspects and language function: A scoping review protocol

Yuhei Kodani; Shinsuke Nagami; Satomi Kojima; Shinya Fukunaga; Hikaru Nakamura

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0281231

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJanuary 17, 2023
8 Mar 2023 Decision Letter - Gianmarco Abbadessa, Editor PONE-D-23-01103 Accuracy of rating scales for evaluating aphasic patient's psychological and language: A scoping review protocol PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Nagami, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Please submit your revised manuscript by Apr 09 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Gianmarco Abbadessa, MD Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. In your cover letter, please confirm that the research you have described in your manuscript, including participant recruitment, data collection, modification, or processing, has not started and will not start until after your paper has been accepted to the journal (assuming data need to be collected or participants recruited specifically for your study). In order to proceed with your submission, you must provide confirmation. 3. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript: “We acknowledge that the power in the research from Grant-in-Aid for Research Activity Start-up (Grant Number 21K2115).” We note that you have provided additional information within the Acknowledgements Section that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. Please note that funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form. Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows: “The funders had and will not have a role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.” Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 4. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: “The funders had and will not have a role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.” At this time, please address the following queries: a) Please clarify the sources of funding (financial or material support) for your study. List the grants or organizations that supported your study, including funding received from your institution. b) State what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role in your study, please state: “The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.” c) If any authors received a salary from any of your funders, please state which authors and which funders. d) If you did not receive any funding for this study, please state: “The authors received no specific funding for this work.” Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 5. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For more information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts: a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. Please note that authors, including Corresponding Authors, are not permitted to be the sole point of contact for data requests. b) If there are no restrictions, please provide the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide. 6. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information. 7. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Does the manuscript provide a valid rationale for the proposed study, with clearly identified and justified research questions? The research question outlined is expected to address a valid academic problem or topic and contribute to the base of knowledge in the field. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ******** 2. Is the protocol technically sound and planned in a manner that will lead to a meaningful outcome and allow testing the stated hypotheses? The manuscript should describe the methods in sufficient detail to prevent undisclosed flexibility in the experimental procedure or analysis pipeline, including sufficient outcome-neutral conditions (e.g. necessary controls, absence of floor or ceiling effects) to test the proposed hypotheses and a statistical power analysis where applicable. As there may be aspects of the methodology and analysis which can only be refined once the work is undertaken, authors should outline potential assumptions and explicitly describe what aspects of the proposed analyses, if any, are exploratory. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Is the methodology feasible and described in sufficient detail to allow the work to be replicable? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Have the authors described where all data underlying the findings will be made available when the study is complete? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception, at the time of publication. The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ******** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ******** 6. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above and, if applicable, provide comments about issues authors must address before this protocol can be accepted for publication. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about research or publication ethics. You may also provide optional suggestions and comments to authors that they might find helpful in planning their study. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: The current paper entitled “Accuracy of rating scales for evaluating aphasic patient's psychological and language: A scoping review protocol ” proposes a scoping review protocol to evaluate the accuracy of the current rating scales for aphasia, by collecting articles (written in English and Japanese language) on this topic. The paper is concise, well written, overall exhaustive and also the ultimate goal of the planned scoping review, i.e. to improve PWA rehabilitation, is undoubtedly relevant. Nevertheless, I have some minor comments: 1)The authors often use accuracy, reliability and validity interchangeably (e.g. rows 89, 95, 113, 190), but this is sometimes misleading. Also, I suggest extracting and then reporting in a result table more measurement properties (other than reliability and validity) of the researched rating scales such as sensitivity, specificity and likelihood of a positive and a negative test. Additionally, it is appropriate to report details about these aspects (e.g. for reliability: both test-retest and inter-observer reliability; for validity its different forms such as construct, content and criterion as well as internal and external validity). 2) In the inclusion criteria I suggest adding a criterion for a minimum number of patients enrolled in each study (e.g. at least 20 patients for article). 3) In Table 1 under the column “exclusion criteria” primary progressive dementia is maybe primary progressive aphasia ? 4) In the section “Stage 4: Illustrating the results” I suggest to consider to extract and report other aspects that could influence the test validity and reliability such as the stroke type (ischemic vs hemorrhagic) and its characteristics (the affected hemisphere, the extent of the lesion, the existence of a previous important vascular disease that could reduce the functional reserve). In fact, reliability and validity may change on the basis of the number and types of the brain areas involved in a stroke. Also, it is extremely important taking into account the acute, subacute or chronic setting of the selected study, or, at least, reporting in table the elapsed time from the stroke and the test administration. 5) The authors will have to provide information on methodological quality for each validation study comprehensive of the reference test used, the specialist that assessed the aphasia-related features, the used cut-off and the presence or absence of blinding. Some suggestions --Although not mandatory for scoping reviews, the authors could consider to explain what type of quality assessment tool they intend to use (e.g. a checklist or a built-in function of Rayyan). --Since low education levels may have an adverse effect on the result of language measurement, information about schooling/education (mean and relative range) of the studied populations could be useful. --Since the author correctly sustain that assessment scales are usually chosen for subjective reasons, reporting the administration time of the used scale, the required specialization of the assessor (physicians, neurologist, speech experts, nurses etc.) and the availability of appropriate normative scores could provide relevant information about the feasibility, interpretability, acceptability of the rating scales. Reviewer #2: The protocol is clear and well detailed: specifically the methods meet the state of the art standards. Therefore I do not suggest any revision ****** 7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: Yes: Andrea Plutino ******** [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0281231.r001
Revision 1
13 Apr 2023 Author Response PLOS ONE_ First revision_20230331 Upon scholarly discourse amongst the authors, the appellation of this manuscript underwent several refinements as articulated. Accuracy of rating scales for evaluating aphasic patients’ psychological aspects and language function: A scoping review protocol Reviewer 1 Comments 1) The authors often use accuracy, reliability and validity interchangeably (e.g. rows 89, 95, 113, 190), but this is sometimes misleading. Also, I suggest extracting and then reporting in a result table more measurement properties (other than reliability and validity) of the researched rating scales such as sensitivity, specificity and likelihood of a positive and a negative test. Additionally, it is appropriate to report details about these aspects (e.g. for reliability: both test-retest and inter-observer reliability; for validity its different forms such as construct, content and criterion as well as internal and external validity). Thank you for your suggestions. We have revised the text as follows. Line 78-81 The first purpose of this scoping review is to identify the domains of language function, communication ability, well-being, and QOL of PWA with low accuracy in rating scales based on data from the Japanese database (Ichushi web) and several international databases. Line 83-86 Furthermore, the third purpose is to present differences in assessment scales for PWA in other countries and in Japan and to estimate the rehabilitation intervention for PWA in Japan and the accuracy of the assessment scales. Line 195-198 Our scoping review will be significant in that it will collect data as thoroughly as possible, highlight data on the accuracy of rating scales of language function, communication ability, well-being, and QOL of PWA, and contribute to the enhancement of rehabilitation for PWA as well as the improvement of test accuracy. Line 172-184 The presented table encompasses various essential aspects, such as the publication year, author’s name, pertinent PWA characteristics (e.g., age, gender, education level, length of time since stroke occurrence, stroke type, stroke frequency, hemisphere affected, and extent of injury), cognitive function, PWA assessor’s profession, domains assessed by the PWA rating scale, and the quality of development and demonstration of the PWA rating scale, including sample size, sampling methods, sample representativeness, and blinding. Moreover, the table includes reported accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, reliability measures (e.g., internal consistency, retest reliability, and interrater reliability), and an overview of statistical procedures related to the PWA rating scale’s validity (content validity, construct validity, and criterion-related validity). In the case of a diagnostic test to determine the presence/absence of aphasia, the table shall also present the scale used to validate the test and its cutoff values. 2) In the inclusion criteria I suggest adding a criterion for a minimum number of patients enrolled in each study (e.g. at least 20 patients for article). Thank you for your suggestion. We have made the following corrections to Table 1 and additions to the text. Table 1. Inclusion and exclusion criteria Inclusion criteria Exclusion criteria The literature is primarily concerned with rating scales aimed at not <20 individuals aged 18 years or older diagnosed with stroke-induced aphasia. This literature comprises observational and empirical studies, as well as research specifically aimed at developing, testing the reliability of and validating rating scales that assess various aspects of poststroke aphasic individuals' language functionality, communication abilities, overall well-being, and QOL. Literature focusing on aphasia from factors other than stroke (head trauma, Alzheimer's disease, cerebrovascular dementia, dementia with Lewy bodies, primary progressive aphasia, frontotemporal dementia, and progressive supranuclear palsy), literature also focusing on higher brain dysfunction other than aphasia, literature focusing on aphasic under 18 years old, literature focusing on aphasia syndromes of stroke, literature focusing on training for people with aphasia after stroke, literature published before 1995, literature in languages other than English and Japanese, intervention studies, scoping reviews, systemic reviews, meta-analysis, case studies, and letter papers. Line 135-138 The first inclusion criterion is the exclusive incorporation of rating scales duly validated with a minimum sample size of 20 participants with PWA aged 18 years or above and supplementation by a cohort with aphasia. 3) In Table 1 under the column “exclusion criteria” primary progressive dementia is maybe primary progressive aphasia ? Thank you for your careful review. We have revised Table 1 as follows Table 1. Inclusion and exclusion criteria Inclusion criteria The literature is primarily concerned with rating scales aimed at not <20 individuals aged 18 years or older diagnosed with stroke-induced aphasia. This literature comprises observational and empirical studies, as well as research specifically aimed at developing, testing the reliability of and validating rating scales that assess various aspects of poststroke aphasic individuals' language functionality, communication abilities, overall well-being, and QOL. Exclusion criteria Literature focusing on aphasia from factors other than stroke (head trauma, Alzheimer's disease, cerebrovascular dementia, dementia with Lewy bodies, primary progressive aphasia, frontotemporal dementia, and progressive supranuclear palsy), literature also focusing on higher brain dysfunction other than aphasia, literature focusing on aphasic under 18 years old, literature focusing on aphasia syndromes of stroke, literature focusing on training for people with aphasia after stroke, literature published before 1995, literature in languages other than English and Japanese, intervention studies, scoping reviews, systemic reviews, meta-analysis, case studies, and letter papers. 4) In the section “Stage 4: Illustrating the results” I suggest to consider to extract and report other aspects that could influence the test validity and reliability such as the stroke type (ischemic vs hemorrhagic) and its characteristics (the affected hemisphere, the extent of the lesion, the existence of a previous important vascular disease that could reduce the functional reserve). In fact, reliability and validity may change on the basis of the number and types of the brain areas involved in a stroke. Also, it is extremely important taking into account the acute, subacute or chronic setting of the selected study, or, at least, reporting in table the elapsed time from the stroke and the test administration. 5) The authors will have to provide information on methodological quality for each validation study comprehensive of the reference test used, the specialist that assessed the aphasia-related features, the used cut-off and the presence or absence of blinding. Thank you for your suggestion. We have added the following text in the revised manuscript. Line 156-164 The obtained results encompass a wide array of information, including the author's name, publication year, study title, country of origin, study purpose, sampling method, sample characteristics (sex, age, educational background, presence/absence of prior stroke, and cognitive assessment results), stroke characteristics (stroke type, hemisphere affected, and extent and duration of injury), sample size, PWA assessor’s profession, rating scale utilized for PWA evaluation, rating scale domains, details of the rating scale development process, information on rating scale sensitivity and specificity, and information related to the reviews of the rating scale’s reliability and validity. Line 172-184 The presented table encompasses various essential aspects, such as the publication year, author’s name, pertinent PWA characteristics (e.g., age, gender, education level, length of time since stroke occurrence, stroke type, stroke frequency, hemisphere affected, and extent of injury), cognitive function, PWA assessor’s profession, domains assessed by the PWA rating scale, and the quality of development and demonstration of the PWA rating scale, including sample size, sampling methods, sample representativeness, and blinding. Moreover, the table includes reported accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, reliability measures (e.g., internal consistency, retest reliability, and interrater reliability), and an overview of statistical procedures related to the PWA rating scale’s validity (content validity, construct validity, and criterion-related validity). In the case of a diagnostic test to determine the presence/absence of aphasia, the table shall also present the scale used to validate the test and its cutoff values. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: FinalFile_Reviewer_Comments.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0281231.r002
28 Apr 2023 Decision Letter - Gianmarco Abbadessa, Editor Accuracy of rating scales for evaluating aphasic patients’ psychological aspects and language function: A scoping review protocol PONE-D-23-01103R1 Dear Dr. Nagami, I'm pleased to inform you that, based on the responses provided to the reviewers concerns that, in my opinion, results addressed, your manuscript can be considered scientifically suitable for publication. It will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.. Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication. An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. Kind regards, Gianmarco Abbadessa, MD Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0281231.r003
Formally Accepted
7 May 2023 Acceptance Letter - Gianmarco Abbadessa, Editor PONE-D-23-01103R1 Accuracy of rating scales for evaluating aphasic patients’ psychological aspects and language function: A scoping review protocol Dear Dr. Nagami: I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org. If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Dr. Gianmarco Abbadessa Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0281231.r004

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .