Methods to assess aphasic stroke patients

Speech and language therapy for aphasia following stroke

BACKGROUND

Aphasia is an acquired language impairment following brain damage that affects some or all language modalities: expression and understanding of speech, reading, and writing. Approximately one third of people who have a stroke experience aphasia.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of speech and language therapy (SLT) for aphasia following stroke.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (last searched 9 September 2015), CENTRAL (2015, Issue 5) and other Cochrane Library Databases (CDSR, DARE, HTA, to 22 September 2015), MEDLINE (1946 to September 2015), EMBASE (1980 to September 2015), CINAHL (1982 to September 2015), AMED (1985 to September 2015), LLBA (1973 to September 2015), and SpeechBITE (2008 to September 2015). We also searched major trials registers for ongoing trials including ClinicalTrials.gov (to 21 September 2015), the Stroke Trials Registry (to 21 September 2015), Current Controlled Trials (to 22 September 2015), and WHO ICTRP (to 22 September 2015). In an effort to identify further published, unpublished, and ongoing trials we also handsearched the International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders (1969 to 2005) and reference lists of relevant articles, and we contacted academic institutions and other researchers. There were no language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing SLT (a formal intervention that aims to improve language and communication abilities, activity and participation) versus no SLT; social support or stimulation (an intervention that provides social support and communication stimulation but does not include targeted therapeutic interventions); or another SLT intervention (differing in duration, intensity, frequency, intervention methodology or theoretical approach).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We independently extracted the data and assessed the quality of included trials. We sought missing data from investigators.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 57 RCTs (74 randomised comparisons) involving 3002 participants in this review (some appearing in more than one comparison). Twenty-seven randomised comparisons (1620 participants) assessed SLT versus no SLT; SLT resulted in clinically and statistically significant benefits to patients' functional communication (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.28, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.06 to 0.49, P = 0.01), reading, writing, and expressive language, but (based on smaller numbers) benefits were not evident at follow-up. Nine randomised comparisons (447 participants) assessed SLT with social support and stimulation; meta-analyses found no evidence of a difference in functional communication, but more participants withdrew from social support interventions than SLT. Thirty-eight randomised comparisons (1242 participants) assessed two approaches to SLT. Functional communication was significantly better in people with aphasia that received therapy at a high intensity, high dose, or over a long duration compared to those that received therapy at a lower intensity, lower dose, or over a shorter period of time. The benefits of a high intensity or a high dose of SLT were confounded by a significantly higher dropout rate in these intervention groups. Generally, trials randomised small numbers of participants across a range of characteristics (age, time since stroke, and severity profiles), interventions, and outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Our review provides evidence of the effectiveness of SLT for people with aphasia following stroke in terms of improved functional communication, reading, writing, and expressive language compared with no therapy. There is some indication that therapy at high intensity, high dose or over a longer period may be beneficial. HIgh-intensity and high dose interventions may not be acceptable to all.

Speech and language therapy for aphasia following stroke

BACKGROUND

Aphasia is an acquired language impairment following brain damage that affects some or all language modalities: expression and understanding of speech, reading and writing. Approximately one-third of people who have a stroke experience aphasia.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of speech and language therapy (SLT) for aphasia following stroke.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (last searched June 2011), MEDLINE (1966 to July 2011) and CINAHL (1982 to July 2011). In an effort to identify further published, unpublished and ongoing trials we handsearched the International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders (1969 to 2005) and reference lists of relevant articles and contacted academic institutions and other researchers. There were no language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing SLT (a formal intervention that aims to improve language and communication abilities, activity and participation) with (1) no SLT; (2) social support or stimulation (an intervention that provides social support and communication stimulation but does not include targeted therapeutic interventions); and (3) another SLT intervention (which differed in duration, intensity, frequency, intervention methodology or theoretical approach).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We independently extracted the data and assessed the quality of included trials. We sought missing data from investigators.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 39 RCTs (51 randomised comparisons) involving 2518 participants in this review. Nineteen randomised comparisons (1414 participants) compared SLT with no SLT where SLT resulted in significant benefits to patients' functional communication (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.30, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.52, P = 0.008), receptive and expressive language. Seven randomised comparisons (432 participants) compared SLT with social support and stimulation but found no evidence of a difference in functional communication. Twenty-five randomised comparisons (910 participants) compared two approaches to SLT. There was no indication of a difference in functional communication. Generally, the trials randomised small numbers of participants across a range of characteristics (age, time since stroke and severity profiles), interventions and outcomes. Suitable statistical data were unavailable for several measures.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Our review provides some evidence of the effectiveness of SLT for people with aphasia following stroke in terms of improved functional communication, receptive and expressive language. However, some trials were poorly reported. The potential benefits of intensive SLT over conventional SLT were confounded by a significantly higher dropout from intensive SLT. More participants also withdrew from social support than SLT interventions. There was insufficient evidence to draw any conclusion regarding the effectiveness of any one specific SLT approach over another.

Evidence-based cognitive rehabilitation after acquired brain injury: a systematic review of content of treatment

We reviewed all randomised trials on cognitive rehabilitation in order to determine the effective elements in terms of patients' and treatment characteristics, treatment goals and outcome. A total of 95 random controlled trials were included from January 1980 until August 2010 studying 4068 patients in total. Most studies had been conducted on language (n = 25), visuospatial functioning (n = 24), and memory (n = 14). Stroke patients were the commonest subjects (57%; overall mean age = 52.2, SD = 15.0 years). Of the interventions 39% were offered more than 12 months after onset and 23% were offered within two months of onset. The mean (SD) number of hours of treatment actually delivered was 4.1 (3.6) per week; treatment was mostly offered individually. No papers gave specific information on the expertise or competences of the staff involved. With 95 RCTs there is a large body of evidence to support the efficacy of cognitive rehabilitation, and the current study can serve as a database for clinicians and researchers. But most studies have given little information about the actual content of the treatment which makes it difficult to use the studies when making treatment decisions in daily clinical practice. We suggest developing an international checklist to make standardised description of non-pharmacological complex interventions possible.

Speech and language therapy for aphasia following stroke

BACKGROUND

Aphasia is an acquired language impairment following brain damage which affects some or all language modalities: expression and understanding of speech, reading and writing. Approximately one-third of people who have a stroke experience aphasia.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of speech and language therapy (SLT) for aphasia following stroke.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (last searched April 2009), MEDLINE (1966 to April 2009) and CINAHL (1982 to April 2009). In an effort to identify further published, unpublished and ongoing trials we handsearched the International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders, searched reference lists of relevant articles and contacted other researchers and authors.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials comparing SLT versus no SLT, SLT versus social support or stimulation, and one SLT intervention versus another SLT intervention. SLT refers to a formal speech and language therapy intervention that aims to improve language and communication abilities and in turn levels of communicative activity and participation. Social support and stimulation refers to an intervention which provides social support or communication stimulation but does not include targeted therapeutic interventions. Direct comparisons of different SLT interventions refers to SLT interventions that differ in terms of duration, intensity, frequency or method of intervention or in the theoretical basis for the SLT approach.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted the data and assessed the quality of included trials. We sought missing data from study investigators if necessary.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 30 trials (41 paired comparisons) in the review: 14 subcomparisons (1064 participants) compared SLT with no SLT; six subcomparisons (279 participants) compared SLT with social support and stimulation; and 21 subcomparisons (732 participants) compared two approaches to SLT. In general, the trials randomised small numbers of participants across a range of characteristics (age, time since stroke and severity profiles), interventions and outcomes. Suitable statistical data were unavailable for several measures.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review shows some indication of the effectiveness of SLT for people with aphasia following stroke. We also observed a consistency in the direction of results which favoured intensive SLT over conventional SLT, though significantly more people withdrew from intensive SLT than conventional SLT. SLT facilitated by a therapist-trained and supervised volunteer appears to be as effective as the provision of SLT by a professional. There was insufficient evidence to draw any conclusions in relation to the effectiveness of one SLT approach over another.

Speech and language therapy for aphasia following stroke

BACKGROUND

Aphasia describes language impairment associated with a brain lesion.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this review was to assess the effects of formal speech and language therapy and non-professional types of support from untrained providers for people with aphasia after stroke.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (last searched: March 1999), and reference lists of relevant articles to December 1998. We also contacted academic institutions and other researchers to identify further published and unpublished trials. We searched The International Journal of Disorders of Communication by hand (known by other names in the past), from 1969 to 1998. Date of most recent searches: January 1999.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials comparing: 1. Any type of formal speech and language therapy in any setting administered by trained speech and language therapists versus no treatment. 2. Any type of formal speech and language therapy in any setting administered by trained speech and language therapists versus any type of informal support for aphasia, given by speech and language therapists or volunteers, whether these were trained or untrained. 3. One type of speech and language therapy versus another type. Outcome measures included measures of any type of communication, other measures of functioning, numbers of drop-outs, and other non-clinical outcomes.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The principal reviewer collected the data, and assessed the quality of the trials with independent data checking and methodological advice. If we could not perform a statistical combination of different studies, we sought missing data. Failing that we provided a description.

MAIN RESULTS

We considered sixty studies in detail, from which we identified twelve trials suitable for the review. Most of these trials were relatively old with poor or unassessable methodological quality. None of the trials was detailed enough for us to complete description and analysis. We could not determine whether formal speech and language therapy is more effective than informal support.

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

The main conclusion of this review is that speech and language therapy treatment for people with aphasia after a stroke has not been shown either to be clearly effective or clearly ineffective within a RCT. Decisions about the management of patients must therefore be based on other forms of evidence. Further research is required to find out if effectiveness of speech and language therapy for aphasic patients is effective. If researchers choose to do a trial, this must be large enough to have adequate statistical power, and be clearly reported.