Speech and language therapy for aphasia following stroke

Marian C Brady, Helen Kelly, Jon Godwin, Pam Enderby, Pauline Campbell, Marian C Brady, Helen Kelly, Jon Godwin, Pam Enderby, Pauline Campbell

Abstract

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 In an effort to identify further published, unpublished, and ongoing trials we also handsearched the International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders (1969 to 2005) and reference lists of relevant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.

Conflict of interest statement

Marian Brady is a speech and language therapist, member of the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists, and is registered with the Health and Care Professions Council, UK.

Helen Kelly is a speech and language therapist and member of the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists.

Pam Enderby has been involved in two studies included in this review. She did not contribute to the assessment or interpretation of either of these studies.

Jon Godwin: none known.

Pauline Campbell: none known.

Figures

1
1
Study flow diagram.
2
2
'Risk of bias' graph: review authors' judgements about each 'Risk of bias' item presented as percentages across all included studies.
3
3
'Risk of bias' summary: review authors' judgements about each 'Risk of bias' item for each included study.
4
4
Funnel plot of comparison: 1 SLT versus no SLT, outcome: 1.3 Receptive language: reading comprehension.
5
5
Funnel plot of comparison: 1 SLT versus no SLT, outcome: 1.7 Expressive language: written.
6
6
Funnel plot of comparison: 1 SLT versus no SLT, outcome: 1.11 Severity of impairment: Aphasia Battery Score (+ PICA).
1.1. Analysis
1.1. Analysis
Comparison 1 SLT versus no SLT, Outcome 1 Functional communication.
1.2. Analysis
1.2. Analysis
Comparison 1 SLT versus no SLT, Outcome 2 Receptive language: auditory comprehension.
1.3. Analysis
1.3. Analysis
Comparison 1 SLT versus no SLT, Outcome 3 Receptive language: reading comprehension.
1.4. Analysis
1.4. Analysis
Comparison 1 SLT versus no SLT, Outcome 4 Receptive language: other.
1.5. Analysis
1.5. Analysis
Comparison 1 SLT versus no SLT, Outcome 5 Expressive language: naming.
1.6. Analysis
1.6. Analysis
Comparison 1 SLT versus no SLT, Outcome 6 Expressive language: general.
1.7. Analysis
1.7. Analysis
Comparison 1 SLT versus no SLT, Outcome 7 Expressive language: written.
1.8. Analysis
1.8. Analysis
Comparison 1 SLT versus no SLT, Outcome 8 Expressive language: written copying.
1.9. Analysis
1.9. Analysis
Comparison 1 SLT versus no SLT, Outcome 9 Expressive language: repetition.
1.10. Analysis
1.10. Analysis
Comparison 1 SLT versus no SLT, Outcome 10 Expressive language: fluency.
1.11. Analysis
1.11. Analysis
Comparison 1 SLT versus no SLT, Outcome 11 Severity of impairment: Aphasia Battery Score (+ PICA).
1.12. Analysis
1.12. Analysis
Comparison 1 SLT versus no SLT, Outcome 12 Mood: MAACL.
1.13. Analysis
1.13. Analysis
Comparison 1 SLT versus no SLT, Outcome 13 Economic outcomes.
1.14. Analysis
1.14. Analysis
Comparison 1 SLT versus no SLT, Outcome 14 Number of dropouts (any reason).
1.15. Analysis
1.15. Analysis
Comparison 1 SLT versus no SLT, Outcome 15 Adherence to allocated intervention.
2.1. Analysis
2.1. Analysis
Comparison 2 SLT versus no SLT (follow‐up data), Outcome 1 Functional communication.
2.2. Analysis
2.2. Analysis
Comparison 2 SLT versus no SLT (follow‐up data), Outcome 2 Receptive language: auditory comprehension.
2.3. Analysis
2.3. Analysis
Comparison 2 SLT versus no SLT (follow‐up data), Outcome 3 Receptive language: reading comprehension.
2.4. Analysis
2.4. Analysis
Comparison 2 SLT versus no SLT (follow‐up data), Outcome 4 Expressive language: naming.
2.5. Analysis
2.5. Analysis
Comparison 2 SLT versus no SLT (follow‐up data), Outcome 5 Expressive language: written.
2.6. Analysis
2.6. Analysis
Comparison 2 SLT versus no SLT (follow‐up data), Outcome 6 Expressive language: repetition.
2.7. Analysis
2.7. Analysis
Comparison 2 SLT versus no SLT (follow‐up data), Outcome 7 Severity of impairment: Aphasia Battery Score.
2.8. Analysis
2.8. Analysis
Comparison 2 SLT versus no SLT (follow‐up data), Outcome 8 Economic outcomes.
2.9. Analysis
2.9. Analysis
Comparison 2 SLT versus no SLT (follow‐up data), Outcome 9 Number of dropouts (any reason).
3.1. Analysis
3.1. Analysis
Comparison 3 SLT versus social support and stimulation, Outcome 1 Functional communication.
3.2. Analysis
3.2. Analysis
Comparison 3 SLT versus social support and stimulation, Outcome 2 Receptive language: auditory comprehension.
3.3. Analysis
3.3. Analysis
Comparison 3 SLT versus social support and stimulation, Outcome 3 Receptive language: other.
3.4. Analysis
3.4. Analysis
Comparison 3 SLT versus social support and stimulation, Outcome 4 Expressive language:naming.
3.5. Analysis
3.5. Analysis
Comparison 3 SLT versus social support and stimulation, Outcome 5 Expressive language: sentences.
3.6. Analysis
3.6. Analysis
Comparison 3 SLT versus social support and stimulation, Outcome 6 Expressive language: picture description.
3.7. Analysis
3.7. Analysis
Comparison 3 SLT versus social support and stimulation, Outcome 7 Expressive language: overall spoken.
3.8. Analysis
3.8. Analysis
Comparison 3 SLT versus social support and stimulation, Outcome 8 Expressive language: written.
3.9. Analysis
3.9. Analysis
Comparison 3 SLT versus social support and stimulation, Outcome 9 Expressive language: fluency.
3.10. Analysis
3.10. Analysis
Comparison 3 SLT versus social support and stimulation, Outcome 10 Severity of impairment: Aphasia Battery Score.
3.11. Analysis
3.11. Analysis
Comparison 3 SLT versus social support and stimulation, Outcome 11 Psychosocial impact.
3.12. Analysis
3.12. Analysis
Comparison 3 SLT versus social support and stimulation, Outcome 12 Number of dropouts for any reason.
3.13. Analysis
3.13. Analysis
Comparison 3 SLT versus social support and stimulation, Outcome 13 Adherence to allocated intervention.
3.14. Analysis
3.14. Analysis
Comparison 3 SLT versus social support and stimulation, Outcome 14 Economic outcomes.
4.1. Analysis
4.1. Analysis
Comparison 4 High‐ versus low‐intensity SLT, Outcome 1 Functional communication.
4.2. Analysis
4.2. Analysis
Comparison 4 High‐ versus low‐intensity SLT, Outcome 2 Receptive language: auditory comprehension.
4.3. Analysis
4.3. Analysis
Comparison 4 High‐ versus low‐intensity SLT, Outcome 3 Receptive language: reading comprehension.
4.4. Analysis
4.4. Analysis
Comparison 4 High‐ versus low‐intensity SLT, Outcome 4 Expressive language: naming.
4.5. Analysis
4.5. Analysis
Comparison 4 High‐ versus low‐intensity SLT, Outcome 5 Expressive language: written.
4.6. Analysis
4.6. Analysis
Comparison 4 High‐ versus low‐intensity SLT, Outcome 6 Expressive language: repetition.
4.7. Analysis
4.7. Analysis
Comparison 4 High‐ versus low‐intensity SLT, Outcome 7 Expressive language: fluency.
4.8. Analysis
4.8. Analysis
Comparison 4 High‐ versus low‐intensity SLT, Outcome 8 Severity of impairment: Aphasia Battery Score.
4.9. Analysis
4.9. Analysis
Comparison 4 High‐ versus low‐intensity SLT, Outcome 9 Mood.
4.10. Analysis
4.10. Analysis
Comparison 4 High‐ versus low‐intensity SLT, Outcome 10 Number of dropouts for any reason.
4.11. Analysis
4.11. Analysis
Comparison 4 High‐ versus low‐intensity SLT, Outcome 11 Adherence to allocated intervention.
5.1. Analysis
5.1. Analysis
Comparison 5 SLT versus social support and stimulation (follow‐up), Outcome 1 Functional communication.
5.2. Analysis
5.2. Analysis
Comparison 5 SLT versus social support and stimulation (follow‐up), Outcome 2 Expressive language: single words (6 week follow‐up).
6.1. Analysis
6.1. Analysis
Comparison 6 High‐ versus low‐intensity SLT (follow‐up), Outcome 1 Functional communication.
6.2. Analysis
6.2. Analysis
Comparison 6 High‐ versus low‐intensity SLT (follow‐up), Outcome 2 Receptive language.
6.3. Analysis
6.3. Analysis
Comparison 6 High‐ versus low‐intensity SLT (follow‐up), Outcome 3 Expressive language.
6.4. Analysis
6.4. Analysis
Comparison 6 High‐ versus low‐intensity SLT (follow‐up), Outcome 4 Severity of impairment: Aphasia Battery Score.
6.5. Analysis
6.5. Analysis
Comparison 6 High‐ versus low‐intensity SLT (follow‐up), Outcome 5 Mood.
6.6. Analysis
6.6. Analysis
Comparison 6 High‐ versus low‐intensity SLT (follow‐up), Outcome 6 Number of dropouts for any reason.
7.1. Analysis
7.1. Analysis
Comparison 7 High versus low dose SLT, Outcome 1 Functional communication.
7.2. Analysis
7.2. Analysis
Comparison 7 High versus low dose SLT, Outcome 2 Receptive language: auditory comprehension (change from baseline).
7.3. Analysis
7.3. Analysis
Comparison 7 High versus low dose SLT, Outcome 3 Expressive language: spoken (change from baseline).
7.4. Analysis
7.4. Analysis
Comparison 7 High versus low dose SLT, Outcome 4 Expressive language: written (change from baseline).
7.5. Analysis
7.5. Analysis
Comparison 7 High versus low dose SLT, Outcome 5 Severity of impairment: Aphasia Battery Score.
7.6. Analysis
7.6. Analysis
Comparison 7 High versus low dose SLT, Outcome 6 Number of dropouts for any reason.
7.7. Analysis
7.7. Analysis
Comparison 7 High versus low dose SLT, Outcome 7 Adherence to allocated intervention.
8.1. Analysis
8.1. Analysis
Comparison 8 High versus low dose SLT (follow‐up), Outcome 1 Functional communication.
8.2. Analysis
8.2. Analysis
Comparison 8 High versus low dose SLT (follow‐up), Outcome 2 Severity of impairment: Aphasia Battery Score.
8.3. Analysis
8.3. Analysis
Comparison 8 High versus low dose SLT (follow‐up), Outcome 3 Number of dropouts for any reason.
9.1. Analysis
9.1. Analysis
Comparison 9 Early versus delayed SLT, Outcome 1 Functional communication.
9.2. Analysis
9.2. Analysis
Comparison 9 Early versus delayed SLT, Outcome 2 Receptive language: auditory comprehension.
9.3. Analysis
9.3. Analysis
Comparison 9 Early versus delayed SLT, Outcome 3 Expressive language: naming.
9.4. Analysis
9.4. Analysis
Comparison 9 Early versus delayed SLT, Outcome 4 Expressive language: written.
9.5. Analysis
9.5. Analysis
Comparison 9 Early versus delayed SLT, Outcome 5 Expressive language: repetition.
9.6. Analysis
9.6. Analysis
Comparison 9 Early versus delayed SLT, Outcome 6 Expressive language: fluency.
9.7. Analysis
9.7. Analysis
Comparison 9 Early versus delayed SLT, Outcome 7 Severity of impairment.
9.8. Analysis
9.8. Analysis
Comparison 9 Early versus delayed SLT, Outcome 8 Number of dropouts for any reason.
10.1. Analysis
10.1. Analysis
Comparison 10 Early versus delayed SLT (follow‐up), Outcome 1 Expressive language: naming.
10.2. Analysis
10.2. Analysis
Comparison 10 Early versus delayed SLT (follow‐up), Outcome 2 Expressive language: repetition.
10.3. Analysis
10.3. Analysis
Comparison 10 Early versus delayed SLT (follow‐up), Outcome 3 Number of dropouts for any reason.
11.1. Analysis
11.1. Analysis
Comparison 11 SLT of short versus long duration, Outcome 1 Functional communication.
11.2. Analysis
11.2. Analysis
Comparison 11 SLT of short versus long duration, Outcome 2 Functional communication (follow‐up).
11.3. Analysis
11.3. Analysis
Comparison 11 SLT of short versus long duration, Outcome 3 Receptive language: auditory comprehension.
11.4. Analysis
11.4. Analysis
Comparison 11 SLT of short versus long duration, Outcome 4 Receptive language: comprehension (50 week follow‐up).
11.5. Analysis
11.5. Analysis
Comparison 11 SLT of short versus long duration, Outcome 5 Receptive language: comprehension (62 week follow‐up).
11.6. Analysis
11.6. Analysis
Comparison 11 SLT of short versus long duration, Outcome 6 Receptive language: reading comprehension.
11.7. Analysis
11.7. Analysis
Comparison 11 SLT of short versus long duration, Outcome 7 Expressive language: naming.
11.8. Analysis
11.8. Analysis
Comparison 11 SLT of short versus long duration, Outcome 8 Expressive language: written.
11.9. Analysis
11.9. Analysis
Comparison 11 SLT of short versus long duration, Outcome 9 Expressive language: repetition.
11.10. Analysis
11.10. Analysis
Comparison 11 SLT of short versus long duration, Outcome 10 Expressive language: fluency.
11.11. Analysis
11.11. Analysis
Comparison 11 SLT of short versus long duration, Outcome 11 Expressive language: 50 and 62 weeks follow‐up.
11.12. Analysis
11.12. Analysis
Comparison 11 SLT of short versus long duration, Outcome 12 Depression.
11.13. Analysis
11.13. Analysis
Comparison 11 SLT of short versus long duration, Outcome 13 Severity of impairment: Aphasia Battery Score.
11.14. Analysis
11.14. Analysis
Comparison 11 SLT of short versus long duration, Outcome 14 Severity of impairment: Aphasia Battery Score (follow‐up).
11.15. Analysis
11.15. Analysis
Comparison 11 SLT of short versus long duration, Outcome 15 Number of dropouts for any reason.
11.16. Analysis
11.16. Analysis
Comparison 11 SLT of short versus long duration, Outcome 16 Adherence to allocated intervention.
12.1. Analysis
12.1. Analysis
Comparison 12 Group versus one‐to‐one SLT, Outcome 1 Functional communication.
12.2. Analysis
12.2. Analysis
Comparison 12 Group versus one‐to‐one SLT, Outcome 2 Receptive language: auditory comprehension.
12.3. Analysis
12.3. Analysis
Comparison 12 Group versus one‐to‐one SLT, Outcome 3 Receptive language: other.
12.4. Analysis
12.4. Analysis
Comparison 12 Group versus one‐to‐one SLT, Outcome 4 Expressive language: naming.
12.5. Analysis
12.5. Analysis
Comparison 12 Group versus one‐to‐one SLT, Outcome 5 Expressive language: general.
12.6. Analysis
12.6. Analysis
Comparison 12 Group versus one‐to‐one SLT, Outcome 6 Expressive language: repetition.
12.7. Analysis
12.7. Analysis
Comparison 12 Group versus one‐to‐one SLT, Outcome 7 Expressive language: written.
12.8. Analysis
12.8. Analysis
Comparison 12 Group versus one‐to‐one SLT, Outcome 8 Quality of life.
12.9. Analysis
12.9. Analysis
Comparison 12 Group versus one‐to‐one SLT, Outcome 9 Severity of impairment: Aphasia Battery Score.
12.10. Analysis
12.10. Analysis
Comparison 12 Group versus one‐to‐one SLT, Outcome 10 Number of dropouts for any reason.
13.1. Analysis
13.1. Analysis
Comparison 13 Group versus one‐to‐one SLT (follow‐up), Outcome 1 Functional communication.
13.2. Analysis
13.2. Analysis
Comparison 13 Group versus one‐to‐one SLT (follow‐up), Outcome 2 Severity of impairment: Aphasia Battery Score.
13.3. Analysis
13.3. Analysis
Comparison 13 Group versus one‐to‐one SLT (follow‐up), Outcome 3 Quality of life.
13.4. Analysis
13.4. Analysis
Comparison 13 Group versus one‐to‐one SLT (follow‐up), Outcome 4 Number of dropouts for any reason.
14.1. Analysis
14.1. Analysis
Comparison 14 Volunteer‐facilitated versus professional SLT, Outcome 1 Functional communication.
14.2. Analysis
14.2. Analysis
Comparison 14 Volunteer‐facilitated versus professional SLT, Outcome 2 Receptive language: auditory comprehension.
14.3. Analysis
14.3. Analysis
Comparison 14 Volunteer‐facilitated versus professional SLT, Outcome 3 Receptive language: reading comprehension.
14.4. Analysis
14.4. Analysis
Comparison 14 Volunteer‐facilitated versus professional SLT, Outcome 4 Receptive language: other.
14.5. Analysis
14.5. Analysis
Comparison 14 Volunteer‐facilitated versus professional SLT, Outcome 5 Expressive language: spoken.
14.6. Analysis
14.6. Analysis
Comparison 14 Volunteer‐facilitated versus professional SLT, Outcome 6 Expressive language: repetition.
14.7. Analysis
14.7. Analysis
Comparison 14 Volunteer‐facilitated versus professional SLT, Outcome 7 Expressive language: written.
14.8. Analysis
14.8. Analysis
Comparison 14 Volunteer‐facilitated versus professional SLT, Outcome 8 Severity of impairment: Aphasia Battery Score.
14.9. Analysis
14.9. Analysis
Comparison 14 Volunteer‐facilitated versus professional SLT, Outcome 9 Number of dropouts for any reason.
14.10. Analysis
14.10. Analysis
Comparison 14 Volunteer‐facilitated versus professional SLT, Outcome 10 Adherence to allocated intervention.
15.1. Analysis
15.1. Analysis
Comparison 15 Computer‐mediated versus professional SLT, Outcome 1 Functional communication.
15.2. Analysis
15.2. Analysis
Comparison 15 Computer‐mediated versus professional SLT, Outcome 2 Receptive language.
15.3. Analysis
15.3. Analysis
Comparison 15 Computer‐mediated versus professional SLT, Outcome 3 Expressive language.
15.4. Analysis
15.4. Analysis
Comparison 15 Computer‐mediated versus professional SLT, Outcome 4 Expressive language: written.
15.5. Analysis
15.5. Analysis
Comparison 15 Computer‐mediated versus professional SLT, Outcome 5 Severity of impairment.
15.6. Analysis
15.6. Analysis
Comparison 15 Computer‐mediated versus professional SLT, Outcome 6 Number of dropouts for any reason.
16.1. Analysis
16.1. Analysis
Comparison 16 Computer‐mediated versus professional SLT (follow‐up), Outcome 1 Functional communication (6 weeks).
16.2. Analysis
16.2. Analysis
Comparison 16 Computer‐mediated versus professional SLT (follow‐up), Outcome 2 Expressive language: naming (6 weeks).
17.1. Analysis
17.1. Analysis
Comparison 17 Semantic SLT versus other SLT, Outcome 1 Functional communication.
17.2. Analysis
17.2. Analysis
Comparison 17 Semantic SLT versus other SLT, Outcome 2 Receptive language: auditory comprehension.
17.3. Analysis
17.3. Analysis
Comparison 17 Semantic SLT versus other SLT, Outcome 3 Receptive language: other.
17.4. Analysis
17.4. Analysis
Comparison 17 Semantic SLT versus other SLT, Outcome 4 Expressive language: naming.
17.5. Analysis
17.5. Analysis
Comparison 17 Semantic SLT versus other SLT, Outcome 5 Expressive language: written.
17.6. Analysis
17.6. Analysis
Comparison 17 Semantic SLT versus other SLT, Outcome 6 Expressive language: repetition.
17.7. Analysis
17.7. Analysis
Comparison 17 Semantic SLT versus other SLT, Outcome 7 Expressive language: fluency.
17.8. Analysis
17.8. Analysis
Comparison 17 Semantic SLT versus other SLT, Outcome 8 Number of dropouts for any reason.
17.9. Analysis
17.9. Analysis
Comparison 17 Semantic SLT versus other SLT, Outcome 9 Adherence to allocated intervention.
18.1. Analysis
18.1. Analysis
Comparison 18 Constraint‐induced aphasia therapy versus other SLT, Outcome 1 Functional communication.
18.2. Analysis
18.2. Analysis
Comparison 18 Constraint‐induced aphasia therapy versus other SLT, Outcome 2 Receptive language: auditory comprehension.
18.3. Analysis
18.3. Analysis
Comparison 18 Constraint‐induced aphasia therapy versus other SLT, Outcome 3 Receptive language: other.
18.4. Analysis
18.4. Analysis
Comparison 18 Constraint‐induced aphasia therapy versus other SLT, Outcome 4 Expressive language: naming.
18.5. Analysis
18.5. Analysis
Comparison 18 Constraint‐induced aphasia therapy versus other SLT, Outcome 5 Expressive language: repetition.
18.6. Analysis
18.6. Analysis
Comparison 18 Constraint‐induced aphasia therapy versus other SLT, Outcome 6 Expressive language: written.
18.7. Analysis
18.7. Analysis
Comparison 18 Constraint‐induced aphasia therapy versus other SLT, Outcome 7 Quality of life.
18.8. Analysis
18.8. Analysis
Comparison 18 Constraint‐induced aphasia therapy versus other SLT, Outcome 8 Severity of impairment.
19.1. Analysis
19.1. Analysis
Comparison 19 Constraint‐induced aphasia therapy versus other SLT (follow‐up), Outcome 1 Functional communication.
19.2. Analysis
19.2. Analysis
Comparison 19 Constraint‐induced aphasia therapy versus other SLT (follow‐up), Outcome 2 Quality of life.
19.3. Analysis
19.3. Analysis
Comparison 19 Constraint‐induced aphasia therapy versus other SLT (follow‐up), Outcome 3 Severity of impairment.
20.1. Analysis
20.1. Analysis
Comparison 20 SLT with gestural adjunct versus SLT, Outcome 1 Functional communication.
20.2. Analysis
20.2. Analysis
Comparison 20 SLT with gestural adjunct versus SLT, Outcome 2 Expressive language.
20.3. Analysis
20.3. Analysis
Comparison 20 SLT with gestural adjunct versus SLT, Outcome 3 Severity of impairment: Aphasia Battery Score.
20.4. Analysis
20.4. Analysis
Comparison 20 SLT with gestural adjunct versus SLT, Outcome 4 Functional communication (follow‐up).
20.5. Analysis
20.5. Analysis
Comparison 20 SLT with gestural adjunct versus SLT, Outcome 5 Expressive language: (follow‐up).
20.6. Analysis
20.6. Analysis
Comparison 20 SLT with gestural adjunct versus SLT, Outcome 6 Severity of impairment: Aphasia Battery Score (follow‐up).
21.1. Analysis
21.1. Analysis
Comparison 21 Melodic intonation therapy versus other SLT, Outcome 1 Functional communication.
21.2. Analysis
21.2. Analysis
Comparison 21 Melodic intonation therapy versus other SLT, Outcome 2 Expressive language: naming.
21.3. Analysis
21.3. Analysis
Comparison 21 Melodic intonation therapy versus other SLT, Outcome 3 Expressive language: repetition.
21.4. Analysis
21.4. Analysis
Comparison 21 Melodic intonation therapy versus other SLT, Outcome 4 Number of dropouts for any reason.
22.1. Analysis
22.1. Analysis
Comparison 22 Functional SLT versus conventional SLT, Outcome 1 Functional communication.
23.1. Analysis
23.1. Analysis
Comparison 23 Operant training SLT versus conventional SLT, Outcome 1 Receptive language: auditory comprehension.
23.2. Analysis
23.2. Analysis
Comparison 23 Operant training SLT versus conventional SLT, Outcome 2 Receptive language: other.
23.3. Analysis
23.3. Analysis
Comparison 23 Operant training SLT versus conventional SLT, Outcome 3 Expressive language: spoken.
23.4. Analysis
23.4. Analysis
Comparison 23 Operant training SLT versus conventional SLT, Outcome 4 Expressive language: written.
23.5. Analysis
23.5. Analysis
Comparison 23 Operant training SLT versus conventional SLT, Outcome 5 Severity of impairment.
24.1. Analysis
24.1. Analysis
Comparison 24 Verb comprehension SLT versus preposition comprehension SLT, Outcome 1 Receptive language: auditory comprehension.
24.2. Analysis
24.2. Analysis
Comparison 24 Verb comprehension SLT versus preposition comprehension SLT, Outcome 2 Receptive language: reading.
24.3. Analysis
24.3. Analysis
Comparison 24 Verb comprehension SLT versus preposition comprehension SLT, Outcome 3 Expressive language.
24.4. Analysis
24.4. Analysis
Comparison 24 Verb comprehension SLT versus preposition comprehension SLT, Outcome 4 Severity of impairment: Aphasia Battery Score.
25.1. Analysis
25.1. Analysis
Comparison 25 Discourse therapy versus conventional therapy, Outcome 1 Functional communication.
25.2. Analysis
25.2. Analysis
Comparison 25 Discourse therapy versus conventional therapy, Outcome 2 Receptive language: word comprehension.
25.3. Analysis
25.3. Analysis
Comparison 25 Discourse therapy versus conventional therapy, Outcome 3 Expressive language: naming.
26.1. Analysis
26.1. Analysis
Comparison 26 'Task Specific' production versus conventional therapy, Outcome 1 Functional communication.
26.2. Analysis
26.2. Analysis
Comparison 26 'Task Specific' production versus conventional therapy, Outcome 2 Expressive language: spoken sentence.
26.3. Analysis
26.3. Analysis
Comparison 26 'Task Specific' production versus conventional therapy, Outcome 3 Expressive language: naming.
26.4. Analysis
26.4. Analysis
Comparison 26 'Task Specific' production versus conventional therapy, Outcome 4 Expressive language: naming (follow‐up).
26.5. Analysis
26.5. Analysis
Comparison 26 'Task Specific' production versus conventional therapy, Outcome 5 Expressive language: spoken sentence.
26.6. Analysis
26.6. Analysis
Comparison 26 'Task Specific' production versus conventional therapy, Outcome 6 Expressive language: treated items.
27.1. Analysis
27.1. Analysis
Comparison 27 Language oriented therapy (LOT) versus conventional SLT, Outcome 1 Number of dropouts for any reason.
27.2. Analysis
27.2. Analysis
Comparison 27 Language oriented therapy (LOT) versus conventional SLT, Outcome 2 Adherence to allocated intervention.
28.1. Analysis
28.1. Analysis
Comparison 28 Auditory comprehension SLT versus conventional SLT, Outcome 1 Functional communication.
28.2. Analysis
28.2. Analysis
Comparison 28 Auditory comprehension SLT versus conventional SLT, Outcome 2 Receptive language: word comprehension.
28.3. Analysis
28.3. Analysis
Comparison 28 Auditory comprehension SLT versus conventional SLT, Outcome 3 Receptive language: other auditory comprehension.
28.4. Analysis
28.4. Analysis
Comparison 28 Auditory comprehension SLT versus conventional SLT, Outcome 4 Receptive language: auditory comprehension (treated items).
28.5. Analysis
28.5. Analysis
Comparison 28 Auditory comprehension SLT versus conventional SLT, Outcome 5 Receptive language: reading comprehension.
28.6. Analysis
28.6. Analysis
Comparison 28 Auditory comprehension SLT versus conventional SLT, Outcome 6 Expressive language: naming.
28.7. Analysis
28.7. Analysis
Comparison 28 Auditory comprehension SLT versus conventional SLT, Outcome 7 Expressive language: spoken sentence.
29.1. Analysis
29.1. Analysis
Comparison 29 FIlmed programme instruction versus conventional SLT, Outcome 1 Expressive language: naming.
29.2. Analysis
29.2. Analysis
Comparison 29 FIlmed programme instruction versus conventional SLT, Outcome 2 Receptive language: reading comprehension.

Source: PubMed

3
Abonner