Skip to main content
Download PDF

Meta-analysis and systematic review of the relationship between sex and the risk or incidence of poststroke aphasia and its types

BMC Geriatrics volume 24, Article number: 220 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

Objective

To analyse and discuss the association of gender differences with the risk and incidence of poststroke aphasia (PSA) and its types, and to provide evidence-based guidance for the prevention and treatment of poststroke aphasia in clinical practice.

Data sources

Embase, PubMed, Cochrane Library and Web of Science were searched from January 1, 2002, to December 1, 2023.

Study selection

Including the total number of strokes, aphasia, the number of different sexes or the number of PSA corresponding to different sex.

Data extraction

Studies with missing data, aphasia caused by nonstroke and noncompliance with the requirements of literature types were excluded.

Data synthesis

36 papers were included, from 19 countries. The analysis of 168,259 patients with stroke and 31,058 patients with PSA showed that the risk of PSA was 1.23 times higher in female than in male (OR = 1.23, 95% CI = 1.19–1.29, P < 0.001), with a prevalence of PSA of 31% in men and 36% in women, and an overall prevalence of 34% (P < 0.001). Analysis of the risk of the different types of aphasia in 1,048 patients with PSA showed a high risk in females for global, broca and Wenicke aphasia, and a high risk in males for anomic, conductive and transcortical aphasia, which was not statistically significant by meta-analysis. The incidence of global aphasia (males vs. females, 29% vs. 32%) and broca aphasia (17% vs 19%) were higher in females, and anomic aphasia (19% vs 14%) was higher in males, which was statistically significant (P < 0.05).

Conclusions

There are gender differences in the incidence and types of PSA. The risk of PSA in female is higher than that in male.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

Stroke is the second leading cause of death in the world, and poststroke aphasia (PSA) is a common sequela of stroke patients [1, 2]. PSA is a speech disorder caused by the impairment of the language function area of the dominant hemisphere. The incidence of stroke is increasing year by year, from 13.34% in 2003 to 21.94% in 2014 and 29.55% in 2021 [3, 4]. The factors influencing PSA deserve exploring as an important factor predicting recovery or death after stroke [5, 6].

The severity and age of stroke can predict the risk of PSA [7, 8], and the location and size of stroke have an important reference role in predicting PSA types [9]. But whether gender plays a predictive role in the incidence of  PSA and its types is still controversial [10, 11]. The lateralization of cerebral hemisphere use and the onset age of stroke affect the incidence of PSA in different sexes [12]. At present, it is considered that global aphasia and broca aphasia are the most common types of PSA. But the incidence and risk of PSA between different sexes are inevitably biased the accuracy of the conclusions drawn only by comparing between groups [13]. The research on PSA focuses on curative effect, and there are few studies on the incidence and related influencing factors. In this paper, through the meta-analysis of binary variables and rates, the differences of risk and incidence between different sexes in PSA and its types are discussed in order to provide evidence-based guidance for the prevention and early rehabilitation of PSA.

Methods

This meta-analysis was registered on the PROSPERO platform with the registration number CRD42022369411: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=369411

Data sources and eligibility criteria

The Embase, PubMed, Cochrane Library and Web of Science were searched from January 1, 2000, to December 1, 2023. The keywords "Stroke", "Cerebral Hemorrhage", "Brain Infarction" and "Aphasia" were combined with their free words in the database. We searched for publications without restrictions on language, or type.

Inclusion criteria

The inclusion criteria were as follows: (1) The research type was observational research. (2) The total number of stroke and aphasia cases and the number of people of different sexes were included. (3) The number of people corresponding to different sexes with PSA was included.

Exclusion criteria: (1) The data of the total number of stroke or aphasia or the number of gender is missing. (2) Inclusion or exclusion of a specific type of aphasia. (3) Aphasia caused by brain trauma, tumor, inflammation, neurodegeneration and other non-stroke causes, and specific relevant data cannot be extracted. (4) Publishing with duplicate data. (5) The data is contradictory, and the original data cannot be obtained after contacting the author. (6) The literature types are non-observational studies such as conferences, scientific and technological achievements, case reports and reviews.

Study selection and data collection processes

According to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, the two authors independently screened the literature and were finally included in the study after browsing the topic primary selection and reading the full text. Four authors collected basic research materials and data, including the basic characteristics of the literature and the number of stroke and aphasia cases in different sexes. In case of dispute, another author re-evaluated it and reached an agreement through discussion.

Quality evaluation

Newcastle–Ottawa Scale was used to evaluate the quality of the included cohort studies and case–control studies, including the selection of study population, comparability between groups and measurement of exposure factors/results. The total score is 9 points, 3 points and below are low quality, 4–6 points are medium quality, and 7 points and above are high quality. The quality evaluation of cross-sectional study uses the evaluation standards of American health care quality and research institutions, with a total of 11 items, in which "Yes" is 1 point, "Unclear" and "No" are 0 points, 3 points and below are low quality, 4–7 points are medium quality, and 8 points and above are high quality. The quality evaluation of all included studies was independently completed by two authors. If there are different opinions, the final result would be decided after full discussion.

Statistical analysis

Stata 16.0 was used for analysis, meta-analysis of binary variables was used to evaluate the risk of PSA and its types, and meta-analysis of rate was used to calculate the incidence of PSA and its types. The results of continuous variables are expressed by the mean ± standard deviation, the binary variables by the odds ratio (OR), and the confidence interval (CI) by 95%. The heterogeneity (I2 ≤ 50%) was analysed by a fixed effect model, and when I2 > 50%, it was considered that the heterogeneity was large, and the random effect model was selected to analyse the data. The difference was statistically significant when P ≤ 0.05.

Results

Description of studies

After eliminating duplicate and irrelevant searches, 1988 documents were selected by reading topics and abstracts, and the remaining 36 documents met the requirements by intensive reading of 162 documents. Refer to Fig. 1 for the screening process. Among them, there were 168,259 cases of cerebral stroke (97,081 males and 71,175 females) and 31,058 cases of PSA (17,432 males and 13,626 females) in 31 studies.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Flow diagram

Full size image

There were 1048 patients (544 males and 504 females) in 7 articles involving different sexes and PSA types. There were 300 cases of global aphasia (male 134, female 166), 184 cases of broca aphasia (male 95, female 89), 196 cases of anomic aphasia (male 112, female 84), 142 cases of wernicke aphasia (male 74, female 68), 28 cases of transcortical motor aphasia (male 16, female 12), 48 cases of conductive aphasia (male 28, female 20), 36 cases of transcortical mixed aphasia (male 22, female 14) and 43 cases of transcortical sensory aphasia (male 26, female 17). There were 67 cases of other aphasia, including 9 cases of crossed aphasia (male 2, female 7), 4 cases of isolated aphasia (male 1, female 3), 3 cases of basal ganglia aphasia (male 1, female 2) and the classification of 51 cases of aphasia (male 29, female 22) was unclear.

The people included in the study came from Canada, Italy, Greece, Japan, Croatia, Norway, Britain, the United States, Sweden, Switzerland, Austria, Brazil, Belgium, Denmark, India, Chile, Spain, France and China. In 19 countries, the number of patients with left cerebral ischemic stroke is the largest, and the incidence of stroke is diagnosed by tomography or magnetic resonance imaging. The PSA was judged by the Boston Diagnostic Aphasia Test, Western Aphasia Test, Differential Diagnosis of Aphasia in Minnesota, National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS), Aachen aphasia test, Canadian Neurometric Scale, French Aphasia Screening Test, Pet-name ruby Afasi Norwegian Standard, AIIMS aphasia examination test, and Quick Aphasia Battery. See Table 1.

Table 1 Basic characteristics and quality evaluation results of the included documents
Full size table

Risk of bias in included studies

A total of 36 articles were included, including 27 high-quality articles and 9 medium-quality articles. The main factor affecting the quality of cohort studies and cross-sectional studies is the follow-up part, and eight studies considered the relative long-term and adequacy of follow-up. Comparability between exposed/case groups and nonexposed/control groups is also an important part of the score. Fourteen studies fully compared the general data affecting the results and considered the influence of confounding factors, which improved the referential of the study. Only 18 studies accurately provided the statistical data of PSA patients' age, and other studies failed to write according to the standard, which affected the comparability score between groups and reduced the accuracy of experimental results.

Meta-analysis

Sex and risk of poststroke aphasia

Taking female PSA group after stroke as the exposure group, 31 studies were analyzed by meta-analysis of binary variables, and I2 = 84.5% (Supplementary Fig. 1) thought that the heterogeneity was high, and the source of heterogeneity was not shown by sensitivity analysis (Supplementary Fig. 2). Excluding Lin et al.' s research [40], the heterogeneity is less than 50%. The results show that the risk of PSA in women is higher than that in men, which is 1.23 times that in men (OR = 1.23, 95%CI = 1.19–1.29, P < 0.05). See Fig. 2.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Sex and the risk of poststroke aphasia

Full size image

Sex and incidence of poststroke aphasia

31 studies mentioned the total number of stroke and PSA, and the meta-analysis of utilization rate showed that the incidence of PSA was 34% (I2 = 99.5%, 95%CI = 0.29–0.38, P < 0.001), as shown in Fig. 3. Sensitivity analysis did not find the source of heterogeneity (Supplementary Fig. 3).

Fig. 3
figure 3

Incidence of poststroke aphasia

Full size image

31 studies mentioned male stroke and the total number of PSA, and the meta-analysis of the utilization rate showed that the incidence of male PSA was 31% (I2 = 99.0%, 95%CI = 0.27–0.36, P < 0.001), as shown in Fig. 4. Sensitivity analysis did not find the source of heterogeneity (Supplementary Fig. 4).

Fig. 4
figure 4

Incidence of poststroke aphasia in male

Full size image

31 studies mentioned the total number of female stroke and PSA, and the meta-analysis of utilization rate showed that the incidence of female PSA was 36% (I2 = 99.2%, 95%CI = 0.31–0.42, P < 0.001), as shown in Fig. 5. Sensitivity analysis did not find the source of heterogeneity (Supplementary Fig. 5).

Fig. 5
figure 5

Incidence of poststroke aphasia in female

Full size image

Sex and risk, incidence of type of poststroke aphasia

Global aphasia

A meta-analysis of dichotomous variables in 7 studies showed that the risk of global aphasia was 1.20 times higher in female than in male (OR = 1.27, 95%CI = 0.95–1.70, P = 0.734), see Supplementary Fig. 6. A meta-analysis of rates in 7 studies and by gender subgroup, showed the incidence of global aphasia 31% (I2 = 93.6%, 95%CI = 0.21–0.40, P < 0.001), 29% (I2 = 93.5%,95%CI = 0.16–0.42, P < 0.001) in male, and 32% (I2 = 94.0%,95%CI = 0.17–0.48, P < 0.001) in female, see Fig. 6.

Fig. 6
figure 6

Incidence of global aphasia

Full size image

Broca aphasia

A meta-analysis of dichotomous variables in 7 studies showed that the risk of broca aphasia was 1.20 times higher in female than in male (OR = 1.20, 95%CI = 0.86–1.69, P = 0.816), see Supplementary Fig. 7. A meta-analysis of rates in 7 studies and by gender subgroup, showed the incidence of broca aphasia 18% (I2 = 68.8%, 95%CI = 0.14–0.22, P < 0.001), 17% (I2 = 77.2%,95%CI = 0.10–0.24, P < 0.001) in male, and 19% (I2 = 60.4%,95%CI = 0.13–0.25, P < 0.05) in female, see Fig. 7.

Fig. 7
figure 7

Incidence of broca aphasia

Full size image

Anomic aphasia

A meta-analysis of dichotomous variables in 7 studies showed that the risk of anomic aphasia was 1.33 times higher in male than in female (OR = 1.33, 95%CI = 0.95–1.86, P = 0.305), see Supplementary Fig. 8. A meta-analysis of rates in 7 studies and by gender subgroup, showed the incidence of anomic aphasia 17% (I2 = 92.2%, 95%CI = 0.10–0.23, P < 0.001), 19% (I2 = 90.5%, 95%CI = 0.09–0.30, P < 0.001) in male, and 14% (I2 = 92.4%, 95%CI = 0.05–0.24, P < 0.001) in female, see Fig. 8.

Fig. 8
figure 8

Incidence of anomic aphasia

Full size image

Wernicke aphasia

A meta-analysis of dichotomous variables in 7 studies showed that the risk of wernicke aphasia was 1.02 times higher in female than in male (OR = 1.02, 95%CI = 0.71–1.47, P = 0.427), see Supplementary Fig. 9. A meta-analysis of rates in 7 studies and by gender subgroup, showed the incidence of wernicke aphasia 13% (I2 = 9.9%, 95%CI = 0.11–0.15, P = 0.346), 13% (I2 = 27.5%, 95%CI = 0.09–0.16, P = 0.219) in male, and 13% (I2 = 0.0%, 95%CI = 0.10–0.16, P = 0.418) in female, see Fig. 9.

Fig. 9
figure 9

Incidence of wernicke aphasia

Full size image

Transcortical mixed aphasia

A meta-analysis of dichotomous variables in 3 studies showed that the risk of transcortical mixed aphasia was 1.10 times higher in male than in female (OR = 1.10, 95%CI = 0.53–2.27, P = 0.756), see Supplementary Fig. 10. A meta-analysis of rates in 3 studies and by gender subgroup, showed the incidence of transcortical mixed aphasia 7% (I2 = 84.8%, 95%CI = 0.02–0.12, P < 0.001), 8% (I2 = 89.5%, 95%CI = 0.03–0.19, P < 0.001) in male, and 8% (I2 = 84.5%, 95%CI = 0.04–0.20, P < 0.001) in female, see Fig. 10.

Fig. 10
figure 10

Incidence of transcortical mixed aphasia

Full size image

Conductive aphasia

A meta-analysis of dichotomous variables in 5 studies showed that the risk of conductive aphasia was 1.15 times higher in male than in female (OR = 1.15, 95%CI = 0.62–2.11, P = 0.380), see Supplementary Fig. 11. A meta-analysis of rates in 5 studies and by gender subgroup, showed the incidence of conductive aphasia 5% (I2 = 56.4%, 95%CI = 0.21–0.40, P < 0.05), 4% (I2 = 71.5%, 95%CI = 0.01–0.07, P < 0.05) in male, and 5% (I2 = 0.0%, 95%CI = 0.03–0.07, P = 0.454) in female, see Fig. 11.

Fig. 11
figure 11

Incidence of conductive aphasia

Full size image

Transcortical sensory aphasia

A meta-analysis of dichotomous variables in 4 studies showed that the risk of transcortical sensory aphasia was 1.54 times higher in male than in female (OR = 1.54, 95%CI = 0.82–2.89, P = 0.514), see Supplementary Fig. 12. A meta-analysis of rates in 4 studies and by gender subgroup, showed the incidence of transcortical sensory aphasia 4% (I2 = 60.2%, 95%CI = 0.02–0.06, P < 0.05), 5% (I2 = 75.3%, 95%CI = 0.02–0.06, P < 0.05) in male, and 3% (I2 = 40.0%, 95%CI = 0.01–0.05, P = 0.172) in female, see Fig. 12.

Fig. 12
figure 12

Incidence of transcortical sensory aphasia

Full size image

Transcortical motor aphasia

A meta-analysis of dichotomous variables in 5 studies showed that the risk of transcortical motor aphasia was 1.21 times higher in male than in female (OR = 1.21, 95%CI = 0.55–2.70, P = 0.498), see Supplementary Fig. 13. A meta-analysis of rates in 5 studies and by gender subgroup, showed the incidence of transcortical motor aphasia 3% (I2 = 50.8%, 95%CI = 0.01–0.04, P = 0.058), 3% (I2 = 64.8%, 95%CI = 0.00–0.06, P < 0.05) in male, and 3% (I2 = 43.2%, 95%CI = 0.01–0.05, P = 0.172) in female, see Fig. 13.

Fig. 13
figure 13

Incidence of transcortical mortor aphasia

Full size image

Other type of aphasia

A meta-analysis of dichotomous variables in two studies showed that sex had no predictive significance of developing risk in other types of aphasia (OR = 1.00, 95%CI = 0.57–1.74, P = 0.489), as shown in Supplementary Fig. 14. A meta-analysis of rates in 2 studies and by gender subgroup, showed the incidence of other types of aphasia 15% (I2 = 96.6%, 95%CI = 0.06–0.24, P < 0.001), 17% (I2 = 98.0%, 95%CI = 0.15–0.48, P < 0.001) in male, and 16% (I2 = 97.4%, 95%CI = 0.13–0.46, P < 0.001) in female, see Fig. 14.

Fig. 14
figure 14

Incidence of other type of aphasia

Full size image

Discussion

In this paper, 168,259 stroke patients were analyzed by meta-analysis, and the results showed that the risk of PSA in female was significantly higher than that in male, which was 1.23 times that in male. This meta-analysis showed that the total incidence of PSA was 34%, which was within the range of 13%-35% estimated by previous studies [28, 29]. The incidence of PSA is affected by diagnostic criteria, and the results are different. At present, there is no unified standard for PSA diagnosis. The aphasia quotient is calculated by weighting the four tests of spontaneous language, auditory comprehension, retelling and naming. The lower the score, the more serious the injury. In other countries, the ninth item of the NIHSS is used to evaluate PSA, and the score is simply given according to the severity of aphasia [8]. The higher the score, the more serious the injury, and it is easy to miss the diagnosis of patients with mild aphasia [39].

The gender difference in the incidence of PSA is related to the bilateralization of language functional areas in the female brain. In the population, 96%-99% of right-handed people and 60% of left-handed people are located in the left brain [43]. In recent years, more scholars have tried to explore the importance of the activation of the right brain region in improving aphasia. Chang et al.[44] found that a patient with global aphasia without hemiplegia after left cerebral stroke can restore oral fluency by activating the right frontal lobe. In the critical period when fetal language controls the development of brain regions, it is regulated by sex hormones, resulting in differences in hemispheric structure and language processing [45]. The development of the brain tends to mature in adolescence, when the testosterone level of boys is 20 times that of girls, the estradiol level has little difference. Abnormal sex hormones are often accompanied by speech disorders [46, 47]. Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) was used to study the activated brain regions in language processing, and it was found that men only activated the left side. While women activated both sides, suggesting that women activated extensive brain regions, resulting in gender differences in PSA incidence [48].

There are also studies that the difference in incidence between men and women is related to the age of onset, and there is an enormous age difference between men and women in PSA.[20] This showed that women are often older than men when they are sick. The analysis by Wallentin et al.[11] shows that the sex ratio of PSA in different age groups is significantly different. The sex ratio of patients under 64 years old was 1.04, that of patients aged 64–74 years old was 1.08, that of patients aged 75–84 years old was 1.16 and that of patients over 84 years old was 1.22. With increasing age, the prevalence of PSA in women gradually increased. Women have more ability to keep healthy than men, the age-standardized mortality rate of women is lower than that of men in the same year.There were more women in the long-lived population [49]. Age is a risk factor for PSA, and 75%-80% of strokes occur in patients over 65 years old [20]. The median age of female(78) onset is higher than that of male(71) onset.[50] Kadojić et al.[13] found that the prevalence of PSA in women over 85 years old increased by 7.5 times compared with that in men over 65 years old and only increased by 2 times.

Although it is generally believed that the location and size of stroke are the decisive factors of PSA types. Some studies have shown that 63.5% of PSA classification is not completely related to the damage of classical language functional areas, and it needs to be supported by a complete brain semantic network system [51,52,53]. PSA often causes other serious poststroke complications, among which patients with nonfluent aphasia are usually accompanied by poor motor function and prognosis recovery [26, 54, 55]. There was no authoritative classification standard for PSA types, and 26.5% of aphasia cases cannot be classified [52].

The NIHSS score of women at admission is generally lower than that of men, and the degree of stroke is more serious, which gradually increases with age [50]. Lee and others[56] think that NIHSS score can predict aphasia quotient, indicating that stroke severity is an important variable of PSA degree. Global aphasia is the most common PSA type [4, 13]. Due to the connectivity of the whole brain language network and the abnormal connection mode of key language intervals, its language fluency, listening comprehension and retelling ability are poor, which is the most serious aphasia [35]. The language fluency of different sexes is affected by the volume and density of gray matter [57]. The brain volume, volume and density of gray matter in men are larger than those in women, and women are more likely to damage more gray matter in severe stroke, which affects language fluency [58]. During stroke, diffuse depolarization and cytotoxic edema occur in the gray matter of the brain, which mediates the death of neurons and damages the gray matter [59]. This paper thought that the incidence of female (28%) global aphasia was significantly higher than that of male (27%), but there was no research on the influence and correlation of sex in a large sample of patients.

Ellis et al.[60] showed that age is related to PSA types, and the incidence of broca aphasia is higher in young people. The increase in age is accompanied by extensive changes in brain structure, which often leads to a decline in language competence, but the understanding function is preserved [61]. The most classic type of nonfluent aphasia is broca aphasia, which is characterized by poor oral fluency and retelling ability and relatively good listening and understanding ability, which damages broca's brain area and affects the continuity of language [62, 63]. After analysis by Sharma et al.[10], it was found that the incidence of broca aphasia in men (27.4%) was significantly higher than that in women (19.2%), with an average age of 61.9 years. At present, the mechanism is not clear. Sharma[10] thinks that in addition to the differences in onset age and hemispheric structure between men and women, the damaged vascular area also needs to be further explored. Some studies have also shown that the incidence of broca aphasia in men in all age groups is higher than that in women, and further research and discussion are needed.

Anomic aphasia is aphasia characterized by an inability to name, and other language abilities are relatively complete. The incidence rate is relatively low in acute stroke, and it is usually the outcome type of other aphasia. There was a significant positive correlation between naming accuracy and language span length (r = 0.732), and word naming is considered a short-term memory of speech, which is influenced by the temporary activation of language representation [64]. Female scores in short-term memory are significantly higher than male, their word recall ability and the number of single memories are superior, and their recovery after injury is also better than that of male. In this paper, the incidence of anomic aphasia in men (18%) was higher than that in women (16%), which is closely related to the difference in naming between men and women before injury [65, 66].

The incidence of transcortical motor aphasia, transcortical mixed aphasia, other type of aphasia, conductive aphasia and transcortical sensory aphasia is less than 10%. However, due to the relatively low incidence, previous observational studies have not reached the same conclusion, and the specific mechanism needs to be explored by more scholars. Other types of aphasia in this paper include cross-aphasia, isolated aphasia and basal ganglia aphasia. But the conclusion after meta-analysis suggests that there is no difference between the sexes, and there is no statistical significance. Perhaps because the number of people suffering from other aphasia is relatively small, it is not considered that the incidence of other aphasia is affected by gender. There is no significant gender difference among wernicke aphasia, conductive aphasia and transcortical sensory aphasia, and it is not considered that gender is related to them.

Although sex can't predict the occurrence of stroke, the incidence of stroke in male is higher than that in female worldwide [67]. This leads researchers to pay more attention to reducing the risk factors of stroke in male, while ignoring the physical condition of female. Through meta-analysis, this study holds that the probability of aphasia in female after stroke is higher than that in male, and the severity is also higher than that in male, which is caused by the damage of language function areas in both brains of women after stroke. This requires medical workers to pay special attention to training female right language function area in daily propaganda to prevent stroke and serious PSA. The gender difference in the types of PSA can guide doctors to use physical therapy equipment to carry out early rehabilitation of PSA in the early stage of stroke when patients are in a state of continuous coma. Of course, this requires the auxiliary examination of imaging to confirm the damaged brain area of the patient.

Study limitations

In this paper, a large number of similar studies are analysed, but due to the limitations of literature types. It is impossible to correct for confounding factors such as age, stroke type and injured hemisphere. Subsequent scholars can eliminate the influence of confounding factors through large sample size investigations and studies and obtain more accurate results. The included studies come from 19 countries and regions, and there are great differences among them. It is difficult to completely eliminate their heterogeneity through statistical methods, and the statistical analysis from international cooperation is expected in the future.

Conclusion

In summary, there are differences in the incidence and types of PSA between male and female.  The risk of PSA in female is higher than that in male, which is related to the activation of bilateral brain language functional areas and the age at onset. The incidence of global aphasia and broca aphasia is high in female, and the incidence of anomic aphasia is higher in male. Different sexes cause differences in aphasia types, which are influenced by the degree of gray matter injury, age of onset and activation of language representation. This study can guide clinical workers to carry out gender-specific preventive intervention for people at risk of stroke, and to recover as soon as possible in different aphasia types for different sexes after stroke.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets generated and/or analysed during the current study are not publicly available due to space limitation but are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

References

  1. Feigin VL, Brainin M, Norrving B, Martins S, Sacco RL, Hacke W, Fisher M, Pandian J, Lindsay P. World Stroke Organization (WSO): Global Stroke Fact Sheet 2022. Int J Stroke. 2022;17(1):18–29.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Stipancic KL, Borders JC, Brates D, Thibeault SL. Prospective Investigation of Incidence and Co-Occurrence of Dysphagia, Dysarthria, and Aphasia Following Ischemic Stroke. Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 2019;28(1):188–94.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Wu C, Qin Y, Lin Z, Yi X, Wei X, Ruan Y, He J. Prevalence and Impact of Aphasia among Patients Admitted with Acute Ischemic Stroke. J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis. 2020;29(5):104764.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Grönberg A, Henriksson I, Stenman M, Lindgren AG. Incidence of Aphasia in Ischemic Stroke. Neuroepidemiology. 2022;56(3):174–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Flowers HL, Skoretz SA, Silver FL, Rochon E, Fang J, Flamand-Roze C, Martino R. Poststroke Aphasia Frequency, Recovery, and Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2016;97(12):2188-2201.e2188.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Mihejeva I, Vētra A, Bērziņa G. Factors associated with long-term mortality for stroke unit patients in Latvia. Brain Behav. 2018;8(12):e01152.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. De Cock E, Batens K, Hemelsoet D, Boon P, Oostra K, De Herdt V. Dysphagia, dysarthria and aphasia following a first acute ischaemic stroke: incidence and associated factors. Eur J Neurol. 2020;27(10):2014–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Inatomi Y, Yonehara T, Omiya S, Hashimoto Y, Hirano T, Uchino M. Aphasia during the acute phase in ischemic stroke. Cerebrovasc Dis. 2008;25(4):316–23.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Watila MM, Balarabe SA. Factors predicting post-stroke aphasia recovery. J Neurol Sci. 2015;352(1–2):12–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Sharma S, Briley PM, Wright HH, Perry JL, Fang X, Ellis C. Gender differences in aphasia outcomes: evidence from the AphasiaBank. Int J Lang Commun Disord. 2019;54(5):806–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Wallentin M. Sex differences in post-stroke aphasia rates are caused by age. A meta-analysis and database query. PLoS One. 2018;13(12):e0209571.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Lima RR, Rose ML, Lima HN, Cabral NL, Silveira NC, Massi GA. Prevalence of aphasia after stroke in a hospital population in southern Brazil: a retrospective cohort study. Top Stroke Rehabil. 2020;27(3):215–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Kadojić D, Bijelić BR, Radanović R, Porobić M, Rimac J, Dikanović M. Aphasia in patients with ischemic stroke. Acta Clin Croat. 2012;51(2):221–5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Bhatnagar SC, Jain SK, Bihari M, Bansal NK, Pauranik A, Jain DC, Bhatnagar MK, Meheshwari MC, Gupta M, Padma MV. Aphasia type and aging in Hindi-speaking stroke patients. Brain Lang. 2002;83(2):353–61.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Di Carlo A, Lamassa M, Baldereschi M, Pracucci G, Basile AM, Wolfe CD, Giroud M, Rudd A, Ghetti A, Inzitari D. Sex differences in the clinical presentation, resource use, and 3-month outcome of acute stroke in Europe: data from a multicenter multinational hospital-based registry. Stroke. 2003;34(5):1114–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Godefroy O, Dubois C, Debachy B, Leclerc M, Kreisler A. Vascular aphasias: main characteristics of patients hospitalized in acute stroke units. Stroke. 2002;33(3):702–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Trapl M, Eckhardt R, Bosak P, Brainin M. Early recognition of speech and speech-associated disorders after acute stroke. Wien Med Wochenschr. 2004;154(23–24):571–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Pedersen PM, Vinter K, Olsen TS. Aphasia after stroke: type, severity and prognosis The Copenhagen aphasia study. Cerebrovasc Dis. 2004;17(1):35–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Engelter ST, Gostynski M, Papa S, Frei M, Born C, Ajdacic-Gross V, Gutzwiller F, Lyrer PA. Epidemiology of aphasia attributable to first ischemic stroke: incidence, severity, fluency, etiology, and thrombolysis. Stroke. 2006;37(6):1379–84.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Kyrozis A, Potagas C, Ghika A, Tsimpouris PK, Virvidaki ES, Vemmos KN. Incidence and predictors of post-stroke aphasia: the Arcadia Stroke Registry. Eur J Neurol. 2009;16(6):733–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Brkić E, Sinanović O, Vidović M, Smajlović D. Incidence and clinical phenomenology of aphasic disorders after stroke. Med Arh. 2009;63(4):197–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Bersano A, Burgio F, Gattinoni M, Candelise L. Aphasia burden to hospitalised acute stroke patients: need for an early rehabilitation programme. Int J Stroke. 2009;4(6):443–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Naess H, Hammersvik L, Skeie GO. Aphasia among young patients with ischemic stroke on long-term follow-up. J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis. 2009;18(4):247–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Tsouli S, Kyritsis AP, Tsagalis G, Virvidaki E, Vemmos KN. Significance of aphasia after first-ever acute stroke: impact on early and late outcomes. Neuroepidemiology. 2009;33(2):96–102.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Dickey L, Kagan A, Lindsay MP, Fang J, Rowland A, Black S. Incidence and profile of inpatient stroke-induced aphasia in Ontario. Canada Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2010;91(2):196–202.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Gialanella B. Aphasia assessment and functional outcome prediction in patients with aphasia after stroke. J Neurol. 2011;258(2):343–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Gialanella B, Bertolinelli M, Lissi M, Prometti P. Predicting outcome after stroke: the role of aphasia. Disabil Rehabil. 2011;33(2):122–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Hilari K. The impact of stroke: are people with aphasia different to those without? Disabil Rehabil. 2011;33(3):211–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Flowers HL, Silver FL, Fang J, Rochon E, Martino R. The incidence, co-occurrence, and predictors of dysphagia, dysarthria, and aphasia after first-ever acute ischemic stroke. J Commun Disord. 2013;46(3):238–48.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Schnakers C, Bessou H, Rubi-Fessen I, Hartmann A, Fink GR, Meister I, Giacino JT, Laureys S, Majerus S. Impact of aphasia on consciousness assessment: a cross-sectional study. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2015;29(1):41–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Boehme AK, Martin-Schild S, Marshall RS, Lazar RM. Effect of aphasia on acute stroke outcomes. Neurology. 2016;87(22):2348–54.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Flowers HL, AlHarbi MA, Mikulis D, Silver FL, Rochon E, Streiner D, Martino R. MRI-Based Neuroanatomical Predictors of Dysphagia Dysarthria, and Aphasia in Patients with First Acute Ischemic Stroke. Cerebrovasc Dis Extra. 2017;7(1):21–34.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. González Mc F, Lavados GP, Olavarría IV. Incidence of aphasia in patients experiencing an ischemic stroke. Rev Med Chil. 2017;145(2):194–200.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Ginex V, Veronelli L, Vanacore N, Lacorte E, Monti A, Corbo M. Motor recovery in post-stroke patients with aphasia: the role of specific linguistic abilities. Top Stroke Rehabil. 2017;24(6):428–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Gonzalez R, Rojas M, Ardila A. Alexia and agraphia in Spanish. Int J Lang Commun Disord. 2020;55(6):875–83.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. García-Rudolph A, García-Molina A, Cegarra B, Opisso E, Saurí J, Tormos JM, Bernabeu M. Subacute ischemic stroke rehabilitation outcomes in working-age adults: The role of aphasia in cognitive functional independence. Top Stroke Rehabil. 2021;28(5):378–89.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Xu S, Yan Z, Pan Y, Yang Q, Liu Z, Gao J, Yang Y, Wu Y, Zhang Y, Wang J, et al. Associations between Upper Extremity Motor Function and Aphasia after Stroke: A Multicenter Cross-Sectional Study. Behav Neurol. 2021;2021:9417173.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Goldberg EB, Meier EL, Sheppard SM, Breining BL, Hillis AE. Stroke Recurrence and Its Relationship With Language Abilities. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2021;64(6):2022–37.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Grönberg A, Henriksson I, Lindgren A. Accuracy of NIH Stroke Scale for diagnosing aphasia. Acta Neurol Scand. 2021;143(4):375–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Lin HL, Tsai CF, Liu SP, Muo CH, Chen PC. Association between aphasia and risk of dementia after stroke. J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis. 2022;31(12): 106838.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Wilson SM, Entrup JL, Schneck SM, Onuscheck CF, Levy DF, Rahman M, Willey E, Casilio M, Yen M, Brito AC, et al. Recovery from aphasia in the first year after stroke. Brain. 2023;146(3):1021–39.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Brogan EL, Kim J, Grimley RS, Wallace SJ, Baker C, Thayabaranathan T, Andrew NE, Kilkenny MF, Godecke E, Rose ML, et al. The Excess Costs of Hospitalization for Acute Stroke in People With Communication Impairment: A Stroke123 Data Linkage Substudy. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2023;104(6):942–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Acharya AB, Wroten M: Broca Aphasia. In: StatPearls. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls PublishingCopyright © 2022, StatPearls Publishing LLC.; 2022.

  44. Chuang YC, Liu CC, Yu IC, Tsai YL, Chang ST. Shifting of global aphasia to Wernicke’s aphasia in a patient with intact motor function: a case report. BMC Neurol. 2021;21(1):111.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. Bitan T, Lifshitz A, Breznitz Z, Booth JR. Bidirectional connectivity between hemispheres occurs at multiple levels in language processing but depends on sex. J Neurosci. 2010;30(35):11576–85.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  46. Peper JS, Burke SM, Wierenga LM. Sex differences and brain development during puberty and adolescence. Handb Clin Neurol. 2020;175:25–54.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Liu LS, Zhao JL, He YL, Song YJ, Zeng XF. The 490th case: arthralgia, amenorrhea, aphasia. Zhonghua Nei Ke Za Zhi. 2021;60(12):1189–92.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Xu M, Liang X, Ou J, Li H, Luo YJ, Tan LH. Sex Differences in Functional Brain Networks for Language. Cereb Cortex. 2020;30(3):1528–37.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Miao L, Yang S, Yi Y, Tian P, He L. Research on the prediction of longevity from both individual and family perspectives. PLoS ONE. 2022;17(2):e0263992.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  50. Purroy F, Vena A, Forné C, de Arce AM, Dávalos A, Fuentes B, Arenillas JF, Krupinski J, Gómez-Choco M, Palomeras E, et al. Age- and Sex-Specific Risk Profiles and In-Hospital Mortality in 13,932 Spanish Stroke Patients. Cerebrovasc Dis. 2019;47(3–4):151–64.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Thye M, Mirman D. Relative contributions of lesion location and lesion size to predictions of varied language deficits in post-stroke aphasia. Neuroimage Clin. 2018;20:1129–38.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  52. Kasselimis DS, Simos PG, Peppas C, Evdokimidis I, Potagas C. The unbridged gap between clinical diagnosis and contemporary research on aphasia: A short discussion on the validity and clinical utility of taxonomic categories. Brain Lang. 2017;164:63–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Fridriksson J, den Ouden DB, Hillis AE, Hickok G, Rorden C, Basilakos A, Yourganov G, Bonilha L. Anatomy of aphasia revisited. Brain. 2018;141(3):848–62.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  54. Hybbinette H, Schalling E, Plantin J, Nygren-Deboussard C, Schütz M, Östberg P, Lindberg PG. Recovery of Apraxia of Speech and Aphasia in Patients With Hand Motor Impairment After Stroke. Front Neurol. 2021;12:634065.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  55. Vigliecca NS. Validity and features of spontaneous speech in acute aphasia as evaluated with the Brief Aphasia Evaluation: is fluent aphasia more severe than nonfluent aphasia? Codas. 2019;31(1):e20180048.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Lee S, Na Y, Tae WS, Pyun SB. Clinical and neuroimaging factors associated with aphasia severity in stroke patients: diffusion tensor imaging study. Sci Rep. 2020;10(1):12874.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  ADS  Google Scholar 

  57. Zhu Z, Deng J, Li M, Qin Y, Li J, Yang Y. Processing speed mediates the relationship between brain structure and semantic fluency in aging. Neurosci Lett. 2022;788:136838.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Kaczkurkin AN, Raznahan A, Satterthwaite TD. Sex differences in the developing brain: insights from multimodal neuroimaging. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2019;44(1):71–85.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Dreier JP, Lemale CL, Kola V, Friedman A, Schoknecht K. Spreading depolarization is not an epiphenomenon but the principal mechanism of the cytotoxic edema in various gray matter structures of the brain during stroke. Neuropharmacology. 2018;134(Pt B):189–207.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Ellis C, Urban S. Age and aphasia: a review of presence, type, recovery and clinical outcomes. Top Stroke Rehabil. 2016;23(6):430–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Shafto MA, Tyler LK. Language in the aging brain: the network dynamics of cognitive decline and preservation. Science. 2014;346(6209):583–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  ADS  Google Scholar 

  62. Gajardo-Vidal A, Lorca-Puls DL, Team P, Warner H, Pshdary B, Crinion JT, Leff AP, Hope TMH, Geva S, Seghier ML, et al. Damage to Broca’s area does not contribute to long-term speech production outcome after stroke. Brain. 2021;144(3):817–32.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  63. Hazamy AA, Obermeyer J. Evaluating informative content and global coherence in fluent and non-fluent aphasia. Int J Lang Commun Disord. 2020;55(1):110–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Minkina I, Martin N, Spencer KA, Kendall DL. Links Between Short-Term Memory and Word Retrieval in Aphasia. Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 2018;27(1s):379–91.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  65. Theofilidis A, Karakasi MV, Kevrekidis DP, Pavlidis P, Sofologi M, Trypsiannis G, Nimatoudis J. Gender Differences in Short-term Memory Related to Music Genres. Neuroscience. 2020;448:266–71.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Delikishkina E, Lingnau A, Miceli G. Neural correlates of object and action naming practice. Cortex. 2020;131:87–102.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Kalita J, Bharadwaz MP, Aditi A. Prevalence, contributing factors, and economic implications of strokes among older adults: a study of North-East India. Sci Rep. 2023;13(1):16880.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  ADS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This work was supported by the Youth Project of Shandong Natural Science Foundation [grant number ZR2022QH094] and the Student Innovation and Entrepreneurship Training Program Project of Shandong Province in 2023 [grant number S202310438041S].

Author information

Author notes

  1. Ting-ting Li Ping-ping Zhang and Ming-chen Zhang contributed equally to this work.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Rehabilitation Medicine, Shandong Second Medical University, Weifang, China

    Ting-ting Li, Ming-chen Zhang, Hui Zhang, Hong-ying Wang, Ying Yuan, Shan-lin Wu, Xiao-wen Wang & Zhong-guang Sun

  2. Shanghai University of Medicine & Health Sciences, Shanghai University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Shanghai, China

    Ping-ping Zhang

Authors
  1. Ting-ting Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ping-ping Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ming-chen Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Hui Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Hong-ying Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Ying Yuan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Shan-lin Wu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Xiao-wen Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Zhong-guang Sun
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

The study was designed jointly with Ting-ting Li and Zhang Ping-ping. Ting-ting Li completed the data analysis and manuscript writing. Xiao-wen Wang and Zhong-guang Sun commented on and edited the research. The data and literature collection was completed by Ming-chen Zhang and Hui Zhang. Hong-ying Wang, Ying Yuan and Shan-lin Wu reviewed and confirmed the collected data. Ting-ting Li, Xiao-wen Wang and Zhong-guang Sun reviewed the final draft of the manuscript.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Xiao-wen Wang or Zhong-guang Sun.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1. 

Supplementary Figure 1. Sex and the risk of poststroke aphasia (before exclusion). Supplementary Figure 2. Sensitivity analysis of sex and the risk of poststroke aphasia. Supplementary Figure 3. Sensitivity analysis of incidence of poststroke aphasia. Supplementary Figure 4. Sensitivity analysis of incidence of poststroke aphasia in male. Supplementary Figure 5. Sensitivity analysis of incidence of poststroke aphasia in female. Supplementary Figure 6. Sex and the risk of global aphasia. Supplementary Figure 7. Sex and the risk of broca aphasia. Supplementary Figure 8. Sex and the risk of anomic aphasia. Supplementary Figure 9. Sex and the risk of wernicke aphasia. Supplementary Figure 10. Sex and the risk of transcortical mixed aphasia. Supplementary Figure 11. Sex and the risk of conductive aphasia. Supplementary Figure 12. Sex and the risk of transcortical sensory aphasia. Supplementary Figure 13. Sex and the risk of transcortical mortor aphasia. Supplementary Figure 14. Sex and the risk of other type of aphasia.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Li, Tt., Zhang, Pp., Zhang, Mc. et al. Meta-analysis and systematic review of the relationship between sex and the risk or incidence of poststroke aphasia and its types. BMC Geriatr 24, 220 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-024-04765-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-024-04765-0

Keywords

BMC Geriatrics

ISSN: 1471-2318

Contact us