speech pathology research articles

Clinical Resources

Search archived articles, review expert clinical advice, and access helpful professional links and information.

Ask the Experts
State License Requirements
SLP State Licensure Boards
SLP Professional Associations
Advisory Board

Articles for SLP CEUs

Obstructive sleep apnea: the impact on swallowing in adults.

Kendrea L. (Focht) Garand, PhD, CScD, CCC-SLP, BCS-S, CBIS, CCRE

May 22, 2024

A comprehensive overview of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) and its impact on swallowing performance in adults is provided in this course. Read More

Category: --> Dysphagia (Adult)

Textbook: Cognitive Communication Disorders of MCI and Dementia - Definition, Assessment, and Clinical Management

Kim McCullough, PhD, CCC-SLP , Kathryn A. Bayles, PhD, ASHA Fellow , Cheryl Tomoeda, MS, CCC-SLP

May 20, 2024

Based on the textbook Cognitive Communication Disorders of MCI and Dementia: Definition, Assessment, and Clinical Management, this course provides the knowledge to diagnose and treat individuals with... Read More

Categories: --> Aging Neuro/Cognition/TBI (Adult) Service Delivery Textbook CE

Acquired Brain Injury: Functional Treatment Across Settings

Erin O. Mattingly, MA, CCC-SLP, CBIS

May 9, 2024

Functional therapy ideas for the acute rehabilitation phase of TBI and strategies for incorporating multidisciplinary goals into patient treatment and family education are also discussed. Read More

Categories: --> Neuro/Cognition/TBI (Adult) Service Delivery

Acquired Brain Injury: Functional Evaluation Across Settings

April 29, 2024

Functional and standardized assessment of brain injury across settings are discussed in this course. Symptom identification, informal observational assessment, and challenges associated with using for... Read More

Executive Functioning: Beyond the Basics for School-based SLPs

Victoria Bondurant, MS, CCC-SLP , Joseph Walsh, MS, MEd, CCC-SLP

April 23, 2024

Behaviors that signal a need for intervention and strategies that target social and academic impacts of EF difficulties are described. Read More

Categories: --> Language Disorder(s) Neuro/Cognition/TBI (Peds) School Intervention and Collaboration in Schools Social, Emotional, Behavioral

Environmental Modifications for Adults with Low Vision

Monique Chabot, OTD, OTR/L, SCEM, CLIPP, CAPS

April 5, 2024

An overview of environmental modifications that support speech-language pathology participation and therapeutic outcomes for people with low vision is provided in this article. Read More

Categories: --> AAC - Technology Service Delivery Syndromes and Special Populations

20Q: Counseling Skills for Speech-Language Pathologists

Paul Fogle, PhD, CCC-SLP, Professor Emeritus

April 1, 2024

Basic concepts of counseling skills and how to use them with our clients, patients, and family members are described in this course. Read More

Categories: --> 20Q with Ann Kummer Counseling

Reading Comprehension and the SLP: Contributions of Language

Angie Neal, MS, CCC-SLP

March 19, 2024

The connections between reading comprehension and areas of language such as vocabulary, morphosyntax and social communication are described in this article. Read More

Categories: --> Language Disorder(s) Literacy and Phonological Awareness School Intervention and Collaboration in Schools

Reading Comprehension and the SLP: Foundational Understanding

March 7, 2024

This course provides SLPs with foundational knowledge needed to directly address and collaboratively support reading comprehension across all grade levels. Read More

20Q: Improving Treatment Outcomes in Schools with Interprofessional Collaborative Practice

Kimberly Allyn Farinella, PhD, CCC-SLP

February 26, 2024

From the Desk of Ann KummerInterprofessional collaborative practice (IPCP) is a model of treatment where professionals from different disciplines work together to set goals and determine treatment str... Read More

Categories: --> 20Q with Ann Kummer School Intervention and Collaboration in Schools Service Delivery

Acceptance and Commitment Therapy: An Introduction for SLPs

William S. Evans, PhD, CCC-SLP

February 22, 2024

Introduction to Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT), a modern evidence-based counseling approach, is provided in this course. Research support for ACT is discussed, and case studies to illustrate... Read More

Categories: --> Aphasia Counseling Neuro/Cognition/TBI (Adult) Social, Emotional, Behavioral

20Q: Efficient and Effective Language Intervention in the Schools - Embrace Your Superpower

Shari Robertson, PhD, CCC-SLP, BCS-CL, ASHA Fellow

February 8, 2024

SLPs hold comprehensive and valuable expertise in language that is unique among professional working with school-aged children. This course will encourage SLPs to embrace this expertise, share it with... Read More

Categories: --> 20Q with Ann Kummer Language Disorder(s) School Intervention and Collaboration in Schools

Executive Functioning for School-Age Children: It's More Than Being Organized, Part 1

Karen Dudek-Brannan, EdD, MS, CCC-SLP

January 17, 2024

External symptoms and internal mental processes associated with executive functioning challenges are described in this article. Read More

Categories: --> Language Disorder(s) Neuro/Cognition/TBI (Peds) School Intervention and Collaboration in Schools

Textbook: Medical Speech-Language Pathology Across the Continuum of Care

Alex Johnson, PhD, CCC-SLP, FASHA, FNAP , Barbara Jacobson, PhD, CCC-SLP, ASHA Fellow , Megan Schliep, PhD, CCC-SLP, MPH , Bridget Perry, PhD, CCC-SLP

January 3, 2024

Based on the textbook Medical Speech-Language Pathology Across the Care Continuum, this course explores medical SLP across settings (including acute care, rehabilitation, skilled nursing, outpatient,... Read More

Categories: --> Neuro/Cognition/TBI (Adult) Neuro/Cognition/TBI (Peds) Professional Issues Textbook CE

Pragmatics and Social Cognition: Clinical Considerations for Adults

Katy Magee, MHS, CCC-SLP, L-CBIS

December 18, 2023

Pragmatic and social cognition impairments following brain injuries are described in this course. Assessments, interventions, and the impact of deficits on personal and work relationships post-rehabil... Read More

Categories: --> Neuro/Cognition/TBI (Adult) Social, Emotional, Behavioral

20Q: In the Thick of It - The International Dysphagia Diet Standardization Initiative (IDDSI)

Jennifer Raminick, MA, CCC-SLP, BCS-S , Danielle Ward, MA, CCC-SLP

December 6, 2023

The importance of using standardized language when discussing texture modification and the main differences in IDDSI specific to pediatric patients are described in this course. Read More

Categories: --> 20Q with Ann Kummer Dysphagia (Adult) Peds Feeding and Swallowing

Phonological Intervention for Multilingual Children: Expanding the Cycles Approach

Raul F. Prezas, PhD, CCC-SLP, PNAP

November 21, 2023

Implementation of a Cycles pattern-oriented approach for multilingual children with highly unintelligible speech is described in this course. Read More

Categories: --> Articulation, Phonology, and Speech Sound Disorders Cultural and Linguistic Diversity Nancy McKinley Lecture Series School Intervention and Collaboration in Schools

20Q: Induced Laryngeal Obstruction - An Overview for Speech-Language Pathologists

Robert Brinton Fujiki, PhD, CCC-SLP

November 13, 2023

The nature of induced laryngeal obstruction, as well as the speech-language pathologist’s role in treating this disorder, are described in this course. Read More

Categories: --> 20Q with Ann Kummer Voice and Resonance Disorders

Dysphagia Treatment: When to Discharge a Patient

Debra M. Suiter, PhD, CCC-SLP, BCS-S

November 6, 2023

Clinician-driven and patient-driven factors to consider when determining if it is time to discontinue therapy are discussed in this course. Read More

Overview of Prematurity and Associated Conditions

Rhonda Mattingly, Ed.D, CCC-SLP

October 11, 2023

Editor's Note: This text is a transcript of the course Overview of Prematurity and Associated Conditions, presented by Rhonda Mattingly, Ed.D, CCC-SLPLearning OutcomesAfter this course, participan... Read More

Categories: --> Early Intervention Peds Feeding and Swallowing

Next →
Last →
page: 1 of 41

Our site uses cookies to improve your experience. By using our site, you agree to our Privacy Policy .

Stay informed as a speech–language pathologist

With monthly summaries and a quick-search database of the latest research.

20,463 members

4200+ journal articles

read by our team each year

3600+ reviews

in our database

Become an Informed SLP

We read hundreds of journals and tell you what you need to know.

Our easy-to-read reviews make knowing the research fast and enjoyable. Read or listen. And earn continuing ed hours (ASHA CEUs) as you go.

SCREENING/PREVENTION

Need a language screener? Here are your top 5 options, plus 11 more

★ 8,525 read

COGNITIVE-COMMUNICATION

Untangling Primary Progressive Aphasia, Part One: Clarification and assessment

★ 3,803 read

Are you there, childhood dysarthria? It’s me, SLP: Part One

February 2024

★ 3,745 read

Play through the ages: Early development and assessment

★ 11,180 read

Something to chew on: Motor learning and neural plasticity principles in oral motor feeding therapy

February 2023

★ 20,719 read

OPEN-ACCESS MATERIALS

Tools of the trade: VFSS Edition

October 2022

★ 7,943 read

DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln

Next Article >

Home > CEHS > Dissertations, Theses, and Student Research > 431

Education and Human Sciences, College of (CEHS)

College of education and human sciences: dissertations, theses, and student research, the adverse childhood experiences identification gap in speech language pathology.

Mallory Prior , University of Nebraska-Lincoln Follow

First Advisor

Judy Harvey

Second Advisor

Adrienne Pitt

Date of this Version

A thesis presented to the faculty of the Graduate College of the University of Nebraska in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Sciences

Major: Speech Language Pathology and Audiology

Under the supervision of Professors Judy Harvey and Adrienne Pitt

Lincoln, Nebraska, March 2024

Children exposed to adverse childhood experiences, a variety of potentially traumatic events occurring within the first 18 years of life, are at increased risk for speech and language disorders. Due to the high prevalence of trauma and its lasting effects, it is almost guaranteed that children who are experiencing the ongoing effects from adversity will be found on practicing Speech Language Pathologists’ caseloads. This scoping review was designed to identify current screening practices of Speech Language Pathologists (SLP) in comparison to other professionals (e.g., allied health and education), as well as additional information related to screening procedures for SLPs. The researcher used the instructive work, Scoping Studies: Toward a Methodological Framework (Arksey & O'Malley, 2005), to search multiple databases resulting in screening articles’ titles, abstracts, and full text articles for inclusion in this review. A total of 45 studies were identified. The results of the scoping review indicated that screening practices are not currently used by speech language pathologists. However, a variety of other professions do screen for adverse experiences in childhood. When examining screening characteristics across professions, the most consistent results yielded a screener that was self-reported, a survey or interview, and was provided in any medium (e.g., paper, online, hybrid). This study provides preliminary evidence related to adverse childhood experience screenings across professions, specifically how to begin implementation of screening procedures by speech language pathologists. The results of this review point to the need for more research related to current informal screening practices of speech language pathologists.

Advisors: Judy Harvey and Adrienne Pitt

Included in

Family, Life Course, and Society Commons , Other Education Commons , Social Psychology and Interaction Commons , Speech and Hearing Science Commons , Speech Pathology and Audiology Commons

Advanced Search

Search Help

Notify me via email or RSS
Administrator Resources
How to Cite Items From This Repository
Copyright Information
Collections
Disciplines

Author Corner

Guide to Submitting
Submit your paper or article
CEHS Website

Home | About | FAQ | My Account | Accessibility Statement

Privacy Copyright

NSSLHA Blog

The official blog of the National Student Speech Language Hearing Association

Navigating a Speech-Language Pathology Education as an International Student: Insights, Challenges, and Resources

Embarking on a journey to pursue education in speech-language pathology as an international student can be both exciting and daunting. From choosing the right program to navigating clinical experiences and considering future career paths, there are numerous factors to consider. To explore the lived experiences of international students, I will share some of my experiences—and we’ll also hear from two of my international peers.

Shannon Xu (she/her) First-year speech-language pathology master’s student at the University of Washington

Hometown: Hohhot, China

Jiahe Zhang (she/her)

First-year speech-language pathology master’s student at the University of Wisconsin–Madison

Hometown: Dalian, China

Edward Yang (he/him) Current post-baccalaureate student and incoming master’s student at the University of Washington

Hometown: Taizhong, Taiwan

In this blog post, we’ll delve into the experiences of international students in speech-language pathology education—highlighting our motivations, education, and clinical experiences in the U.S. We will also provide advice and resources for future international applicants—and potential considerations about entering the field.

Motivations for Pursuing Speech-Language Pathology Education in the U.S.

International students, like me, choose to pursue speech-language pathology education in the U.S. for various reasons. My international peers all have very different experiences, so I hope to use this blog as a space to share our perspectives and provide more resources for future international students.

Shannon: I went to a U.S. college for undergrad, wanting to become a bilingual teacher. Later, I became more interested in linguistics and psychology research and found the field of speech-language pathology to be a perfect place to integrate my interdisciplinary knowledge.

Jiahe: In my case, the speech-language pathology major in my home country (China) was underdeveloped, and I sought more systematic and scientific training to enhance my clinical and research skills.

Edward: I wanted to combine my interests in language and medicine, which led me to explore speech-language pathology as a viable career path. While studying in my home country (Taiwan) was an option, the wealth of knowledge and resources available in the U.S. and the reputation of U.S. programs ultimately influenced my decision to study abroad.

Clinical Experiences and Challenges

Shannon: I have enjoyed most of my clinical experiences so far. I am fortunate to have supervisors and peers who provide lots of support and guidance. One area of challenge is to recognize that my experience as a bilingual speaker might be different from [that of] my monolingual clients, which can impact the distinction between differences and disorders. For example, I did an evaluation on a pediatric client with a suspected stutter who had some sporadic tension during conversations. Personally, it was hard for me to recognize the tension because I sometimes experience that myself as a non-native speaker of English. Luckily, my supervisor was very patient; she listened to my opinion and helped me clarify the distinction by explaining the reasoning for her judgments.

Jiahe: In my first year, I was fortunate to have placements that aligned with my interests, although adapting to the clinical setting posed challenges. I faced some issues such as language barriers and self-disclosure about my identity, so sometimes I am more careful about establishing client rapport and providing culturally relevant treatment. However, through perseverance and support from my supervisors, I gradually got used to the clinical environment and honed my skills.

Future Plans and Concerns

Edward: Looking ahead, I want to work predominantly with adults in medical settings. While there are still uncertainties about job security and cultural/linguistic adaptation in the U.S., I remain optimistic about leveraging my diverse background to contribute meaningfully to the profession. Although I still consider the possibility of returning to Taiwan, I am concerned about market saturation and the need for further certification.

Shannon: I plan to stay in the U.S. and gain more clinical and research experience before eventually returning home. My short-term goal after graduation is to become a well-rounded and competent clinician in many different settings. I also hope to eventually get a PhD and keep contributing to the field by conducting clinically applied research. Like Edward, I share his apprehension regarding securing a work visa and operating within medical environments, given that hospital positions typically necessitate citizenship. I am also worried about applying the skills I learned in English to my native language and providing therapy to monolingual Chinese populations.

Advice for Future International Applicants

Jiahe: Remember: You are unique. For prospective international students, learning to self-advocate and embrace your identity is very important. Don’t be afraid to communicate with your supervisors about concerns and seek clarification. While we might face more self-doubt about our language barriers or “accents,” sometimes we have a better grasp of the English language than native speakers. For example, as we may have learned English more prescriptively, it may be easier for us to explain the grammatical structures to our clients. As international students, we are also sharing our valuable cultural and linguistic diversity and advancing the field in both our home country and the U.S.

Resources for Graduate School Applications

Jiahe: Navigating the landscape of graduate school applications as an international student can be challenging due to information gaps and unfamiliarity with program quality. Prior to coming to the U.S., I relied on resources such as the U.S. News website to learn about different programs. However, I realized that the ranking does not give you the full picture. For me, participating in a 1-year post-baccalaureate program at the University of Washington provided invaluable access to information and mentorship within the department. Being in the U.S. also helped me choose a suitable graduate program and prepared me for graduate school.

Shannon: If you are an international applicant, here are some resources to help you decide which programs to apply to—and potential funding opportunities:

Deciding on a Program

To find a list of ASHA-accredited graduate programs, go to ASHA Edfind .
For more information about choosing the programs, refer to this NSSLHA blog post .
Consider a post-baccalaureate program: Some post-bacc programs require a full year of in-person instruction, and you will need to apply again for the master’s program. There are also online options, and some schools offer a 3-year program (1 year post-bacc + 2 years master’s), so you are guaranteed admission to their master’s programs.
Talk to graduate program advisors, or attend a prospective student day. If you are interested in a graduate program in the U.S., most programs will host what is known as “prospective student days” or offer one-on-one appointments with a graduate advisor to answer any potential questions.
Regularly read about speech-language pathology programs via the U.S. News website . However, I would take the ranking with a grain of salt—the best-ranking programs are not necessarily the best fit for you.

Reviewing Program Requirements

Review some of the requirements of graduate school applications. Note that different programs may have different requirements, so I encourage you to look at the specific requirements for each program.
Find out about observation hours: ASHA requires the students to obtain 25 hours of observation supervised by a certified speech-language pathologist (SLP). If you are unable to obtain those hours in your home country, please contact your program’s graduate advisor. Usually, they can help you arrange some observation during your master’s program in the U.S.

Scholarship Opportunities for International Students

ASHFoundation International Graduate Student Scholarship
ASHA Minority Student Leadership Program (MSLP)
NSSLHA scholarship resource list
You can also search your program’s website for more scholarship and funding opportunities within the program.

Becoming an SLP as an international student entails navigating myriad challenges and opportunities. From selecting the right program to becoming a confident and competent practicing SLP and researcher, each step of the journey offers valuable insights and growth. By sharing our experiences and cultivating an international community, we can collectively strive toward excellence in the field of speech-language pathology—enriching the lives of individuals with communication disorders worldwide.

Speech and language therapy for aphasia following stroke

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.

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.

Plain language summary

Speech and language therapy for language problems after a stroke

Review question

We reviewed the evidence of the effect of speech and language therapy (SLT) on language problems experienced by people after a stroke (known as aphasia).

About a third of people who suffer a stroke develop aphasia. One or more areas of communication can be affected: speaking, oral comprehension, reading, and writing. Speech and language therapists assess, diagnose, and treat aphasia at all stages of recovery after stroke. They work closely with the person with aphasia, families, and other healthcare professionals. We wanted to see whether SLT for aphasia was effective and whether it was better or worse than non‐specialist social support. We also wanted to see which approaches to therapy offered the best recovery.

Study characteristics

The evidence is current to September 2015. We found and included 57 studies involving 3002 people with aphasia in our review. We reviewed all SLT types, regimens, and methods of delivery.

Key results

Based on 27 studies (and 1620 people with aphasia), speech and language therapy benefits functional use of language, language comprehension (for example listening or reading), and language production (speaking or writing), when compared with no access to therapy, but it was unclear how long these benefits may last.

There was little information available to compare SLT with social support. Information from nine trials (447 people with aphasia) suggests there may be little difference in measures of language ability. However, more people stopped taking part in social support compared with those that attended SLT.

Thirty‐eight studies compared two different types of SLT (involving 1242 people with aphasia). Studies compared SLT that differed in therapy regimen (intensity, dosage and duration), delivery models (group, one‐to‐one, volunteer, computer‐facilitated), and approach. We need more information on these comparisons. Many hours of therapy over a short period of time (high intensity) appeared to help participants' language use in daily life and reduced the severity of their aphasia problems. However, more people stopped attending these highly intensive treatments (up to 15 hours a week) than those that had a less intensive therapy schedule.

Quality of the evidence

Generally, the quality of the studies conducted and reported could be improved. Key quality features were only reported by half of the latest trials. Thus, it is unclear whether this was the result of poorly conducted studies or poorly reported studies. Most comparisons we made would benefit from the availability of more studies involving more people with aphasia.

Summary of findings

Description of the condition.

The term aphasia (less commonly referred to as dysphasia) is used to describe an acquired loss or impairment of the language system following brain damage ( Benson 1996 ). Usually associated specifically with language problems arising after a stroke, it excludes other communication difficulties attributed to sensory loss, confusion, dementia or speech difficulties due to muscular weakness or dysfunction, such as dysarthria. The most common cause of aphasia is a stroke (or cerebrovascular accident), mainly to the left hemisphere, where the language function of the brain is usually situated for right‐handed people. About a third of all people who experience a stroke develop aphasia ( Engelter 2006 ; Laska 2001 ). The aphasic population is heterogeneous, with individual profiles of language impairment varying in terms of severity and degree of involvement across the modalities of language processing, including the expression and comprehension of speech, reading, writing, and gesture ( Code 2003 ; Parr 1997 ). Variation in the severity of expressive impairments, for example, may range from the individual experiencing occasional word‐finding difficulties to having no effective means of verbal communication. The severity of aphasia can also change over time as one aspect of language difficulty may improve while others remain impaired. The impact and the consequential implications of having aphasia for the individuals themselves, their families, and society highlight the importance of the effective management and rehabilitation of language difficulties caused by aphasia.

Description of the intervention

The primary aim of speech and language therapy (SLT)* in aphasia management and rehabilitation is to maximise individuals' language and communication abilities, activity, and participation. Speech and language therapists are typically responsible for the assessment, diagnosis, and, where appropriate, rehabilitation of aphasia arising as a result of stroke. The ability to successfully communicate a message via spoken, written, or non‐verbal modalities (or a combination of these) within day‐to‐day interactions is known as functional communication. Recent developments have seen speech and language therapists working closely with the person with aphasia, and in partnership with their families and caregivers, to maximise the individual's functional communication and participation.

* For the purposes of clarity within this review we have reserved SLT as an abbreviation for speech and language therapy alone.

Why it is important to do this review

There is no universally accepted treatment that can be applied to every person with aphasia, and typically therapists select from a variety of theoretical approaches, delivery models, and intervention regimens to manage and facilitate rehabilitation. We undertook this 2016 review update to incorporate new evidence and systematic review methodologies and to reflect recent developments in clinical practice. A summary of the differences between the 2016 version and the original 1999 review is presented in Differences between protocol and review .

To assess the effects of speech and language therapy (SLT) for aphasia following stroke. In particular, we aimed to investigate whether:

SLT is more effective than no SLT;
SLT is more effective than social support and stimulation;
one SLT intervention (SLT A) is more effective than another SLT intervention (SLT B).

SLT intervention A or B refers to variations in intervention that differ in duration, intensity, frequency, method, or theoretical basis (e.g. early SLT versus delayed SLT interventions).

Criteria for considering studies for this review

Types of studies.

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated one or more SLT interventions designed to improve language or communication. We included trials that recruited participants with mixed aetiologies or impairments provided it was possible to extract the data specific to individuals with poststroke aphasia. We did not employ any language restriction.

Types of participants

Adults (as defined by the trialists) who had acquired aphasia as a result of a stroke, and families of participating stroke survivors.

Types of interventions

In a change from the 1999 version of the review, all subsequent updates compressed the intervention into three broad groups. We included trials that reported a comparison between a group that received an SLT intervention designed to have an impact on communication and a group that received:

no SLT intervention;
social support and stimulation; or
an alternative SLT intervention.

We considered SLT interventions to be any form of targeted practice tasks or methodologies with the aim of improving language or communication abilities, activities, or participation. These are typically delivered by speech and language therapists. In the UK, 'speech and language therapist' is a protected professional title and refers to individuals holding a professional qualification recognised by the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists and registered with the Health and Care Professions Council, UK. For the purposes of this review, we extended this definition to include therapists belonging to a body of similar professional standing elsewhere in the world.

We are aware that the SLT profession does not exist in many countries. In trials conducted in such settings, where other clinical staff (e.g. medical or nursing staff) led targeted interventions that aimed to improve participants' communicative functioning, we included these interventions within this review as SLT interventions. We planned a sensitivity analysis of the impact of professional SLT training on the provision of an intervention where data allowed.

We also recognise that current rehabilitation practice may include SLT interventions that aim to improve communicative functioning but are delivered by non‐therapists (family members, SLT assistants, SLT students, voluntary support groups). Where those delivering the intervention received training from a speech and language therapist and delivered an intervention designed by a speech and language therapist, we described these as volunteer‐facilitated SLT interventions.

Social support and stimulation

Social support and stimulation refers to an intervention that provides social support or stimulation but does not include targeted therapeutic interventions that aim to resolve participants' expressive or receptive speech and language impairments. Interventions in this category might include, for example, emotional, psychological, or creative interventions (such as art, dance, or music) as delivered by other healthcare professionals (e.g. art, physical, or music therapists). Other social stimulation interventions, such as conversation or other informal, unstructured communicative interactions, are also included in this category.

We did not include pharmacological interventions for aphasia as they are addressed within a separate review ( Greener 2001 ). We also excluded magnetic or electrical stimulation interventions (e.g. transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), transcranial magnetic stimulation, or epidural cortical stimulation) or auditory temporal processing training procedures, as we considered these to be adjuncts to SLT rather than an SLT approach. The effectiveness of tDCS interventions for aphasia is addressed within a separate review ( Elsner 2012 ).

Types of outcome measures

Primary outcomes.

The primary outcome chosen to indicate the effectiveness of an intervention that aims to improve communicative ability must reflect communication activity in real world settings, that is, functional communication. Providing a definition for the concept of functional communication is problematic and makes evaluation difficult. The ability to functionally communicate relates to language or communicational skills sufficient to permit the transmission of a message via spoken, written, or non‐verbal modalities, or through a combination of these channels. Success is typically and naturalistically demonstrated through successful communication of the message ‐ the speaker communicates their message, and the listener understands the message communicated. Attempts to measure this communication success formally vary from analysis of discourse interaction in real life or sampling of discourse during specific tasks (known as discourse analysis). Other more formal tools might include the Communicative Abilities of Daily Living (CADL) or the Communicative Effectiveness Index (CETI) ( Holland 1980 ; Lomas 1989 ).

Secondary outcomes

Given the lack of a comprehensive, reliable, valid, and globally accepted functional communication evaluation tool, surrogate outcome measures of communication impairment (or ability) include formal measures of receptive language (oral, written and gestural), expressive language (oral, written and gestural) or overall level of severity of aphasia where receptive and expressive language are measured using language batteries. Such tools might include, for example, the Western Aphasia Battery (WAB) or the Porch Index of Communicative Abilities (PICA) ( Kertesz 1982 ; Porch 1967 ). Other secondary outcomes of relevance to this review include psychosocial impact (i.e. impact on psychological or social well‐being including mood, depression, anxiety, and distress), satisfaction with intervention, number of dropouts (i.e. the number of participants dropping out at treatment or follow‐up phases for any reason), adherence to allocated intervention (i.e. the number of participants voluntarily withdrawing from their allocated intervention), economic outcomes (such as costs to the patient, caregivers, families, health service, and society) and caregiver and family quality of life. We extracted measures of overall functional status (e.g. Barthel) in the original review as one of a number of primary outcomes. We also extracted these data, where available, as an indicator of overall severity of stroke, but this information is now presented as a patient descriptor within the Characteristics of included studies table. A full list of outcome measures included in the review and their references can be found in Appendix 1 .

Search methods for identification of studies

See the 'Specialized register' section in the Cochrane Stroke Group module. We did not impose any language restrictions.

Electronic searches

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) ( Appendix 2 ), MEDLINE (1946 to September 2015) ( Appendix 3 ), EMBASE (1980 to September 2015) ( Appendix 4 ), CINAHL (1982 to September 2015) ( Appendix 5 ), AMED (1985 to September 2015) ( Appendix 6 ), LLBA (1973 to September 2015), and SpeechBITE (2008 to September 2015) using comprehensive search strategies.

We also searched major trials registers for ongoing trials including ClinicalTrials.gov (to 21 September 2015) (http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/), the Stroke Trials Registry (to 21 September 2015) (www.strokecenter.org/trials/), Current Controlled Trials (to 22 September 2015) (www.controlled‐trials.com), and WHO ICTRP (http://www.who.int/ictrp/search/en/) (to 22 September 2015).

Searching other resources

We handsearched the International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders (formerly the International Journal of Disorders of Communication , the European Journal of Disorders of Communication , and the British Journal of Disorders of Communication ) from 1969 to December 2005. Since 2006, this journal has been indexed in MEDLINE so our comprehensive electronic search identified any relevant trials published in the journal after that date.
We checked reference lists of all relevant articles to identify other potentially relevant randomised studies.
We contacted all British universities and colleges where speech and language therapists receive training and all relevant Special Interest Groups in the UK to enquire about any relevant published, unpublished, or ongoing studies.
We approached colleagues and authors of relevant randomised trials to identify additional studies of relevance to this review.

Selection of studies

Our selection criteria for inclusion in this review were as follows.

Study participants included people with aphasia as a result of stroke, together with their families.
The SLT intervention was designed to have an impact on communication.
The methodological design was a randomised controlled trial.

One review author (PC) screened titles and abstracts of the records identified through the electronic searches described above and excluded obviously irrelevant studies. We obtained full‐text copies of all the remaining studies that fulfilled the listed inclusion criteria. Two review authors (MB and PC) independently assessed the studies based on the inclusion criteria and decided whether to include or exclude studies. We resolved any disagreements through discussion and involvement of the wider review team. Studies judged ineligible for inclusion, together with reasons for their exclusion, are listed in the Characteristics of excluded studies table.

Data extraction and management

We created and piloted an electronic data extraction tool for use in this 2016 review update. Two review authors (MB and PC) independently confirmed the data for the trials included and extracted the data for the additional trials included in this update. We resolved any disagreements through discussion. We extracted many data elements, including: number and location of sites, methods of randomisation, blinding, attrition from intervention, co‐interventions, confounder details, number of participants, age, education, handedness, sex, native language, severity of aphasia, time post onset, inclusion and exclusion criteria, details of intervention in accordance with the template for intervention description and replication (TIDieR) checklist ( Hoffmann 2014 ), outcome measures and time points used, evidence of an a priori sample size calculation, intention‐to‐treat (ITT) analysis, and summary data. We attempted to contact investigators for any missing data (or data in a suitable format) for inclusion in the review.

Where we identified a cross‐over trial, we based decisions relating to the suitability of the data (either up to or beyond the cross‐over phase) on careful consideration of a range of factors including the intervention(s) used, the timing of the intervention(s), the impact of any treatment carryover, and whether data from relevant paired comparisons within the trial were available. Whenever possible, in such cases we sought individual patient data.

Assessment of risk of bias in included studies

We assessed the trials for methodological quality, paying attention to whether there was protection from the following types of bias: selection bias (i.e. true random sequencing and true concealment up to the time of allocation), performance bias (i.e. differences in co‐interventions between the groups), attrition bias (i.e. withdrawal after trial entry), and detection bias (i.e. 'unmasked' assessment of outcome). We coded concealed allocation as 'low risk', 'unclear' or 'high risk' according to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions ( Higgins 2011 ). In addition, we extracted information on whether trialists employed power calculations and ITT analyses. In some cases, for example where all participants were accounted for in the final results, this was not applicable.

Measures of treatment effect

We conducted the review using Review Manager 5 (RevMan) for statistical analysis ( RevMan 2014 ). We recorded descriptive information for each trial (characteristics of participants, interventions, and outcomes) in the Characteristics of included studies table and issues relating to the methodological quality of the trial in the 'Risk of bias' tables. Where trials made a similar comparison and appeared to be sufficiently similar with respect to their descriptive information, we pooled the summary data (where available) using meta‐analysis. We expressed continuous data as differences in means or standardised difference in means and dichotomised data as odds ratios (OR). We used 95% confidence intervals (CI) throughout the review.

The results of the trials in this review reported measures based on differences in final value scores (scores taken at the end of the intervention) and change‐from‐baseline scores (also known as change scores). Although the mean differences (MD) based on change‐from‐baseline scores in randomised trials can generally be assumed to address the same intervention effects as MD analysis based on final value scores, change‐from‐baseline scores are given higher weights in analysis than final value scores ( Higgins 2011 ). For this reason, we have used final value scores within the meta‐analyses wherever possible. We do not report change‐from‐baseline scores unless they were the only available values ( Higgins 2011 ).

Assessment of heterogeneity

We assessed heterogeneity using the I 2 statistic, where any heterogeneity observed may be considered moderate (an I 2 value of 30% to 60%), substantial (50% to 90%) or considerable (75% to 100%) ( Higgins 2011 ). Where we observed important heterogeneity (based of the I 2 value together with significant evidence of heterogeneity as per the Chi 2 test P value), we used a random‐effects model ( Higgins 2011 ).

Data synthesis

Where a single outcome measure was assessed and reported across trials using different measurement tools, we presented these data in a meta‐analysis using a standardised mean difference (SMD) summary statistic. In cases where the direction of measurement differed, it was necessary to adjust the direction of some measures to ensure that all the scales operated in the same direction. For example, measures of comprehension ability generally increase with increasing ability, but in some cases (e.g. the Token Test) improving comprehension skills might be reflected by decreasing scores, so it was necessary to multiply the mean values by −1 to ensure that all the scales operated in the same direction. This method did not affect standard deviation (SD) values, and we have presented these within the meta‐analyses without the need for a directional change.

In cases where trials only reported partial summary data, for example mean final value scores but not SDs (for example Wertz 1981 ), we attempted to calculate these values from available information. When this was not possible, we imputed the SD to facilitate inclusion of the trial within the review by using a SD value from a similar participant group ( Higgins 2011 ). We have reported details of the source of any imputed SD values within the text. Where there was a choice of possible SD values, we imputed the highest and lowest values to ensure that both methods provided a similar overall conclusion and then used the highest value in the presentation of the trial within the forest plot.

Where results in a particular comparison were only available in a mixture of final value and change‐from‐baseline scores, we presented these data graphically using SMDs, but we were unable to pool these results in a meta‐analysis.

Subgroup analysis and investigation of heterogeneity

We did not plan any subgroup analyses.

Sensitivity analysis

The original 1999 review did not include any planned sensitivity analyses. However, we aimed to reflect developments in clinical practice including trials where SLT interventions were delivered or facilitated by non‐speech and language therapists. We planned to conduct sensitivity analyses to evaluate any impact the inclusion of these groups of trials may have had on the results of the review and the impact of trial quality.

Description of studies

The 1999 version of this review included 12 trials, including Kinsey 1986 and Hartman 1987 . Following access to unpublished data from the authors, we excluded quasi‐randomised trials such as Hartman 1987 . We also excluded Kinsey 1986 , which is a comparison of methods of providing therapy materials rather than a comparison of therapy interventions. Thus, of the 12 trials included in the 1999 review, 10 trials remained in the subsequent review updates. We identified an additional 46 trials in the search updates, and we revised the decision to exclude one other trial, Shewan 1984 , from the original review following communication with the trialists, who confirmed that it was an RCT. This updated review is based on data from a total of 57 included trials.

Results of the search

Our search strategy identified 11,314 records from electronic databases. The flow of literature through the searching and screening process is shown in the PRISMA flow diagram ( Figure 1 ). Details of the information requested from the authors of included trials, and whether this was obtained, are given in the Characteristics of included studies table.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nCD000425-AFig-FIG01.jpg

Study flow diagram.

Following our updated search, we identified 18 new trials (23 randomised comparisons) for inclusion in this 2016 review update ( B.A.Bar 2011i ; B.A.Bar 2011ii ; CACTUS 2013 ; Conklyn 2012 ; Crosson 2014 ; FUATAC ; Mattioli 2014 ; MIT 2014i ; MIT 2014ii ; NARNIA 2013 ; SEMaFORE ; Sickert 2014 ; SP‐I‐RiT ; Szaflarski 2014 ; Varley 2016i ; Varley 2016ii ; VERSE II ; Wilssens 2015 ; Woolf 2015i ; Woolf 2015ii ; Woolf 2015iii ; Wu 2013 ; Xie 2002 ). In addition we identified 18 ongoing studies ( TNT ‐ ACTRN12614000081617 ; ASK ; Big CACTUS ; CATChES ; COMPARE ; Nehra ‐ CTRI/2014/04/004554 ; FCET2EC ; IMITATE ; Kukkonen 2007 ; LIFT 2014 ; MIT USA ; Kurland ‐ {"type":"clinical-trial","attrs":{"text":"NCT02012374","term_id":"NCT02012374"}} NCT02012374 ; ORLA‐Write ; Osborne 2012 ; PMvSFA ; RATS‐3 ; U‐Health ; VERSE III ); these are likely to be eligible for inclusion in the review at a later date. These studies are detailed in the Characteristics of ongoing studies table.

Included studies

We included a total of 57 trials involving 3002 participants in this review. Several trials contributed to more than one comparison and so numbers of participants contributing to each comparison should be considered separately (SLT versus no SLT N = 1620; SLT versus social support and stimulation N = 447; SLT A versus SLT B N = 1242) and cannot be summed across comparisons.

Ten trials randomised individuals across three or more groups (trial arms) but for the purposes of this review and the meta‐analyses we have presented and pooled the data within randomised paired comparisons indicated as i, ii or iii. For example, data from Yao 2005 are presented across three 'trials' of SLT versus no SLT ( Yao 2005i ), individual SLT versus no SLT ( Yao 2005ii ) and SLT versus individual SLT ( Yao 2005iii ). Other trials affected were B.A.Bar 2011i, B.A.Bar 2011ii, Katz 1997i, Katz 1997ii, Lincoln 1982i, Lincoln 1982ii, Lincoln 1982iii, MIT 2014i, MIT 2014ii, Shewan 1984i, Shewan 1984ii, Shewan 1984iii, Smith 1981i, Smith 1981ii, Smith 1981iii, Varley 2016i, Varley 2016ii, Wertz 1986i, Wertz 1986ii, Wertz 1986iii, Woolf 2015i, Woolf 2015ii, Woolf 2015iii, Zhang 2007i, and Zhang 2007ii . In other cases where a single research group published different trials within the same year; these are indicated as for example Lincoln 1984a , and Lincoln 1984b . Further details can be found in the Characteristics of included studies . In the 'duplicate' trials, there was a risk of including the same group of participants (usually the control group) twice in a single meta‐analysis, so we split the number of participants in the control group across the two 'trials' that shared that comparison group ( Higgins 2011 ). In the case of continuous data, the mean and SD values remained the same. In the case of dichotomous data, we split both the number of events and total number of patients across the relevant number of arms. In keeping with previous reviews where this method has been used and for ease of reading, these paired randomised comparisons will be referred to as trials from this point onwards.

Thirteen trials employed a cross‐over design ( B.A.Bar 2011i ; B.A.Bar 2011ii ; Crerar 1996 ; Elman 1999 ; Lincoln 1982i ; Lincoln 1982ii ; Lincoln 1982iii ; Lincoln 1984b ; Varley 2016i ; Varley 2016ii ; Wertz 1986i ; Wertz 1986ii ; Wertz 1986iii ). We carefully considered the suitability of each cross‐over trial for inclusion within the review. We considered factors including the suitability of the design, the intervention(s) used, the timing of the intervention(s), the impact of any treatment carry‐over and finally whether data from relevant paired comparisons from the cross‐over data were available. For eight trials we extracted data up to the point of cross‐over ( B.A.Bar 2011i ; Crerar 1996 ; Elman 1999 ; Lincoln 1982iii ; Lincoln 1984b ; Varley 2016i ; Wertz 1986i ; Wertz 1986ii ). In some cases though, the treatment that participants were allocated to receive following cross‐over was 'no SLT' or similar. In these cases, the 'no SLT' input after cross‐over could be used as a follow‐up period or deferred delivery of therapy (e.g. B.A.Bar 2011ii ; Varley 2016ii ).

In contrast, Lincoln 1982 was also a cross‐over trial in design, with participants randomly allocated to one of four groups with a sequence of interventions that included one active treatment or placebo, either preceded by or followed by conventional SLT. We were able to access the unpublished individual patient trial data for this review. This access to the data, the design, nature and manner of SLT delivery within the trial and the clinical relevance of the comparisons made it possible to include two paired comparisons of those groups within the review.

SLT + operant training versus SLT + social support ( Lincoln 1982i ).
Operant training + SLT versus social support + SLT ( Lincoln 1982ii ).

Taking the individual data at the point of measurement prior to the cross‐over, it was also possible to extract and compare the data from those that had received conventional SLT and compare it to those participants that received a social support and stimulation intervention ( Lincoln 1982iii ).

We present data from 73 randomised comparisons as they relate to the effectiveness of SLT for aphasia following stroke, which compare: SLT versus no SLT, SLT versus social support and stimulation, and SLT A versus SLT B. We have presented details of data within each comparison below with further details on each trial available in the Characteristics of included studies table. Details of participants (age, sex, time since stroke, and aphasia severity by trial ( Table 6 )), SLT interventions ( Appendix 7 ), and assessment tools ( Appendix 1 ) by randomised group are also available. A summary of the findings is available at the end of the Results section ( Table 1 ; Table 2 ; Table 3 ; Table 4 ; Table 5 ).

Summary of findings for the main comparison

a Downgraded 1 level from high to moderate as there were serious limitations identified in the risk of bias (either unclear randomisation sequence, unclear or high risk of bias for allocation concealment, or both in 1 or more of the trials). b See notes about dropouts. c Downgraded 1 level of evidence as wide confidence intervals identified.

Summary of findings 2

a Serious limitations identified in the risk of bias. b Low number of studies/participants. c See notes about dropouts.

Summary of findings 3

Summary of findings 4.

a See notes about dropouts. b Low number of studies/participants. c Serious limitations identified in the risk of bias in 1 or more of the included trials.

Summary of findings 5

a See notes about dropouts. b Low number of studies/participants. c Serious limitations identified in the risk of bias in one or more of the included trials.

AAT : Aachen Aphasia Test; ABC : Aphasia Battery of Chinese; ANELT : Amsterdam‐Nijmegen Everyday Language Test; AQ : Aphasia Quotient; BDAE : Boston Diagnostic Aphasia Examination; BNT : Boston Naming Test; CAT : Comprehensive Aphasia Test; CIAT : Constraint Induced Aphasia Therapy; FCP : Functional Communication Profile; FE scale: Functional‐Expression scale; IQR : interquartile range; MIT : Melodic Intonation Therapy; M‐S Comprehension Test : Morpho‐Syntactic Comprehension Test; MTDDA : Minnesota Test for the Differential Diagnosis of Aphasia; NIHSS : National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale; PICA : Porch Index of Communicative Abilities; SD : standard deviation; SLT : Speech and Language therapy/therapist; SPICA : Shortened Porch Index of Communicative Abilities; STACDAP : Systematic Therapy for Auditory Comprehension Disorders in Aphasic Patients; TOMs : Therapy Outcome Measures; WAB : Western Aphasia Battery; WABAQ : Western Aphasia Battery Aphasia Quotient.

1. SLT versus no SLT

We included 27 randomised comparisons involving 1620 randomised participants in this section ( B.A.Bar 2011i ; CACTUS 2013 ; Conklyn 2012 ; Doesborgh 2004 ; Katz 1997i ; Katz 1997ii ; Laska 2011 ; Lincoln 1984a ; Liu 2006a ; Lyon 1997 ; MacKay 1988 ; Mattioli 2014 ; Smania 2006 ; Smith 1981i ; Smith 1981ii ; Szaflarski 2014 ; Varley 2016i ; Wertz 1986i ; Wertz 1986ii ; Wu 2004 ; Wu 2013 ; Xie 2002 ; Yao 2005i ; Yao 2005ii ; Zhang 2007i ; Zhang 2007ii ; Zhao 2000 ). The SLT intervention was typically delivered by a speech and language therapist. In three trials, a therapist‐trained volunteer facilitated therapy ( CACTUS 2013 ; MacKay 1988 ; Wertz 1986ii ), but some trials were based on independent practice with SLT support ( B.A.Bar 2011i ; Szaflarski 2014 ; Varley 2016i ). Alternative models of intervention delivery included administration by a doctor or nurse ( Wu 2004 ; Xie 2002 ; Yao 2005i ; Yao 2005ii ; Zhao 2000 ), a music therapist ( Conklyn 2012 ), or other therapists in the rehabilitation setting ( Zhang 2007i ; Zhang 2007ii ). In two trials, it was unclear who facilitated the SLT intervention ( Liu 2006a ; Wu 2013 ). Two additional trials compared groups that did and did not receive SLT, but the participants were not randomly assigned to these 'no SLT' groups, so we excluded them from this review ( Prins 1989 ; Shewan 1984 ).

The trials in this section employed a range of SLT interventions that might be broadly grouped as conventional SLT ( Lincoln 1984a ; Liu 2006a ; Mattioli 2014 ; Smania 2006 ; Smith 1981ii ; Wertz 1986i ; Wu 2004 ; Wu 2013 ; Xie 2002 ; Yao 2005ii ; Zhang 2007i ; Zhang 2007ii ), constraint‐induced aphasia therapy ( Szaflarski 2014 ), melodic intonation therapy ( Conklyn 2012 ), intensive SLT ( B.A.Bar 2011i ; Laska 2011 ; Szaflarski 2014 ; Smith 1981i ; Xie 2002 ), group SLT ( Yao 2005i ), volunteer‐facilitated ( MacKay 1988 ; Wertz 1986ii ), computer‐mediated SLT ( B.A.Bar 2011i ; CACTUS 2013 ; Doesborgh 2004 ; Katz 1997i ; Katz 1997ii ; Varley 2016i ), and functionally‐based SLT involving a communicative partner ( Lyon 1997 ). An acupuncture co‐intervention was delivered alongside the SLT intervention in three comparisons ( Liu 2006a ; Zhao 2000 ; Zhang 2007ii ).

Most participants randomised to the 'no SLT' groups received no alternative treatment or support ( Doesborgh 2004 ; Katz 1997i ; Laska 2011 ; Lincoln 1984a ; Liu 2006a ; Lyon 1997 ; MacKay 1988 ; Wertz 1986i ; Wertz 1986ii ; Wu 2004 ; Yao 2005i ; Yao 2005ii ). Only seven trials described an intervention within these 'no SLT' groups. In CACTUS 2013 , we considered the control interventions to be similar to standard poststroke care in the local region at that time; in Smith 1981i and Smith 1981ii , a health visitor went to participants' homes; in Smania 2006 , participants received limb apraxia therapy; and in Zhang 2007i , Zhang 2007ii , and Zhao 2000 , they received medication. The control groups in Katz 1997ii received computer‐based cognitive tasks ('arcade‐style games') and in B.A.Bar 2011i and Varley 2016i , they received visual‐cognitive computer games, all interventions designed not to target language rehabilitation.

The timing of SLT interventions after the onset of aphasia varied widely and is difficult to summarise because of a lack of detailed reporting. Some trialists recruited participants within two to four days after the onset of stroke ( Laska 2011 ; Mattioli 2014 ), while others recruited participants up to 45 days ( Liu 2006a ), 10 weeks ( Lincoln 1984a ), three months ( Conklyn 2012 ; Wu 2013 ; Zhang 2007i ; Zhang 2007ii ) or six months ( Wertz 1986i ; Wertz 1986ii ) after the stroke. Other trials recruited participants longer after stroke, for example between two months and three years after stroke ( Smania 2006 ), or for up to four years ( B.A.Bar 2011i ). Other participants were recruited one year or more after their stroke ‐ up to 17 months in Doesborgh 2004 , two years in MacKay 1988 , eight years in Varley 2016i , 10 years in Lyon 1997 , 19 years in Katz 1997i , 22 years in Katz 1997ii , and 29 years in CACTUS 2013 (see Table 6 for details). Eight trials failed to report the timing of the SLT intervention in relation to the onset of participants' aphasia ( Smith 1981i ; Smith 1981ii ; Szaflarski 2014 ; Wu 2004 ; Xie 2002 ; Yao 2005i ; Yao 2005ii ; Zhao 2000 ).

The frequency of SLT was reported as the number of times daily or as hours per day or per week. Participants received daily SLT (duration unclear) in two trials ( Yao 2005i ; Yao 2005ii ), weekly SLT for up to an hour ( CACTUS 2013 ; Conklyn 2012 ), two hours ( Doesborgh 2004 ; Lincoln 1984a ; Smith 1981ii ), three hours ( Katz 1997i ; Katz 1997ii ; Smania 2006 ; Wu 2013 ), four hours ( Laska 2011 ; Smith 1981i ), five hours ( Mattioli 2014 ; Varley 2016i ), six hours ( MacKay 1988 ; Xie 2002 ), eight hours ( Lyon 1997 ), nine hours ( B.A.Bar 2011i ), or 10 hours ( Wertz 1986i ; Wertz 1986ii ). An additional six comparisons did not report the frequency of the SLT intervention ( Liu 2006a ; Szaflarski 2014 ; Wu 2004 ; Zhang 2007i ; Zhang 2007ii ; Zhao 2000 ). Where specified, the duration of the SLT intervention varied from one session ( Conklyn 2012 ), two weeks ( Mattioli 2014 ), three weeks ( Laska 2011 ), four weeks ( B.A.Bar 2011i ), six weeks ( Varley 2016i ), two months ( Zhao 2000 ), up to three months ( Doesborgh 2004 ; Smania 2006 ; Wertz 1986i ; Wertz 1986ii ; Yao 2005i ; Yao 2005ii ); between five and six months ( CACTUS 2013 ; Katz 1997i ; Katz 1997ii ; Lincoln 1984a ; Lyon 1997 ; Wu 2004 ), or for up to one year ( MacKay 1988 ; Smith 1981i ; Smith 1981ii ; Xie 2002 ).

The 19 randomised comparisons in this section used a wide range of outcome measures including functional communication, receptive language, expressive language, severity of impairment, psychosocial impact and economic outcomes. One of the 14 trials did not report any outcome measures ( Wu 2004 ). Eleven trials carried out follow‐up assessments after SLT at 2 months ( Smania 2006 ), 3 months ( B.A.Bar 2011i ; Szaflarski 2014 ; Wertz 1986i ; Wertz 1986ii ; Yao 2005i ; Yao 2005ii ), 5 months ( CACTUS 2013 ), 6 months ( Laska 2011 ; MacKay 1988 ; Mattioli 2014 ), 8 months ( CACTUS 2013 ), and 12 months ( MacKay 1988 ).

2. SLT versus social support and stimulation

We included nine trials with 447 randomised participants in this section ( ACTNoW 2011 ; David 1982 ; Elman 1999 ; Lincoln 1982iii ; Rochon 2005 ; Shewan 1984ii ; Shewan 1984iii ; Woolf 2015ii ; Woolf 2015iii ). They reported a range of SLT approaches, including conventional SLT ( ACTNoW 2011 ; David 1982 ; Lincoln 1982iii ; Shewan 1984iii ; Woolf 2015iii ), group SLT ( Elman 1999 ), telerehabilitation SLT ( Woolf 2015ii ), language‐oriented SLT ( Shewan 1984ii ), and sentence mapping SLT ( Rochon 2005 ). The social support and stimulation interventions were provided by paid visitors not previously known to the participants with aphasia ( ACTNoW 2011 ; David 1982 ), nursing staff ( Shewan 1984ii ; Shewan 1984iii ), speech and language therapists or speech and language therapy students ( Lincoln 1982iii ; Woolf 2015ii ; Woolf 2015iii ), a trained research assistant ( Rochon 2005 ), or through other social group activities including movement classes, creative arts groups, church activities or support groups ( Elman 1999 ). All visitors providing the ACTNoW 2011 social support received training and a manual of non‐therapeutic activities, suitable conversation topics, and access to equipment. David 1982 provided its volunteers with detailed information on their patients' communication problems, and they received instructions to "encourage their patient to communicate as well as possible". Similarly, the nursing staff volunteers received some information about aphasia and instructions to "stimulate communication to the best of their ability" ( Shewan 1984ii ; Shewan 1984iii ). The volunteers did not receive guidance or instruction in SLT techniques in any of the four trials. Speech and language therapy students received a training session in supported conversation approaches (e.g. initiation and adaptation of communication) and a handbook ( Woolf 2015ii ; Woolf 2015iii ).

The duration of participants' aphasia varied between trials and was reported as: an average of 12 days ( ACTNoW 2011 ), an average of between 3 and 5 years ( Woolf 2015ii ; Woolf 2015iii ), up to 4 weeks ( Shewan 1984ii ; Shewan 1984iii ), up to 3 years ( David 1982 ; Lincoln 1982iii ), 7 months to 28 years ( Elman 1999 ), or between 2 and 9 years ( Rochon 2005 ). Interventions were provided weekly for up to two hours ( David 1982 ; Lincoln 1982iii ; Woolf 2015ii ; Woolf 2015iii ), three hours ( ACTNoW 2011 ; Shewan 1984ii ; Shewan 1984iii ), or five hours ( Elman 1999 ); or over the course 1 month ( Lincoln 1982iii ; Woolf 2015ii ; Woolf 2015iii ), 4 months ( ACTNoW 2011 ; Elman 1999 ), 5 months ( David 1982 ), or 12 months ( Shewan 1984ii ; Shewan 1984iii ).

Outcome measures used in this comparison included measures of functional communication, receptive language, expressive language and levels of severity of impairment. Five trials carried out follow‐up measures at four weeks ( Rochon 2005 ), three months ( David 1982 ; Woolf 2015ii ; Woolf 2015iii ), and six months ( David 1982 ).

3. SLT A versus SLT B

We included 38 trials involving 1242 randomised participants in this section ( B.A.Bar 2011ii ; Bakheit 2007 ; Crerar 1996 ; Crosson 2014 ; Denes 1996 ; Di Carlo 1980 ; Drummond 1981 ; FUATAC ; Hinckley 2001 ; Leal 1993 ; Lincoln 1982i ; Lincoln 1982ii ; Lincoln 1984b ; Meikle 1979 ; Meinzer 2007 ; MIT 2014i ; MIT 2014ii ; NARNIA 2013 ; ORLA 2006 ; ORLA 2010 ; Prins 1989 ; Pulvermuller 2001 ; RATS ; RATS‐2 ; SEMaFORE ; Shewan 1984i ; Sickert 2014 ; Smith 1981iii ; SP‐I‐RiT ; Van Steenbrugge 1981 ; Varley 2016ii ; VERSE I ; VERSE II ; Wertz 1981 ; Wertz 1986iii ; Wilssens 2015 ; Woolf 2015i ; Yao 2005iii ). Four trials also reported additional groups, but these participants were not adequately randomised to the groups, so we excluded them from this review ( Bakheit 2007 ; ORLA 2006 ; Prins 1989 ; Shewan 1984 ).

Studies reported a wide range of SLT interventions, including variations in therapy regimen such as therapy intensity ( Bakheit 2007 ; Denes 1996 ; FUATAC ; ORLA 2006 ; Smith 1981iii ; SP‐I‐RiT ; VERSE I ), duration of therapy ( Di Carlo 1980 ; Meikle 1979 ; ORLA 2010 ; Pulvermuller 2001 ; SP‐I‐RiT ), or delayed delivery ( B.A.Bar 2011ii ; MIT 2014i ; Lyon 1997 ; Varley 2016ii ). Other comparisons included variation in the delivery approach, such as volunteer‐facilitated SLT ( Meikle 1979 ; Meinzer 2007 ; Leal 1993 ; Wertz 1986iii ), computer‐facilitated SLT ( ORLA 2010 ), and group SLT ( FUATAC ; Pulvermuller 2001 ; Wertz 1981 ; Yao 2005iii ). Variations in the theoretical approach included constraint‐induced aphasia therapy ( FUATAC ; Pulvermuller 2001 ; Sickert 2014 ; VERSE II ; Wilssens 2015 ), semantic therapy ( RATS ; RATS‐2 ; SEMaFORE ; Wilssens 2015 ), phonological approaches ( Wilssens 2015 ) or melodic intonation therapy ( MIT 2014i ; MIT 2014ii ). Other trials compared verb versus preposition therapies ( Crerar 1996 ), filmed programmed instructions versus non‐programmed activity ( Di Carlo 1980 ), or programmed instruction versus a placebo ( Lincoln 1984b ).

The average time since onset of participants' aphasia varied from less than a week ( VERSE I ; VERSE II ), up to 1 month ( Bakheit 2007 , Leal 1993 ; RATS‐2 ; Shewan 1984i ; Sickert 2014 ; Wertz 1981 ), 2 months ( SP‐I‐RiT ; Varley 2016ii ; Wertz 1986iii ), 3 months ( Denes 1996 ; MIT 2014i ; MIT 2014ii ), 4 months ( RATS ), 5 months ( Lincoln 1982i ), 6 months ( Lincoln 1984b ), 9 months ( Lincoln 1982ii , Meikle 1979 ), 10 months to one year ( Prins 1989 ), two years ( Di Carlo 1980 , Drummond 1981 ; Hinckley 2001 ; Van Steenbrugge 1981 ), three years ( B.A.Bar 2011ii ; Crosson 2014 ; Meinzer 2007 ; Woolf 2015i ), four years ( NARNIA 2013 ; ORLA 2006 ), five years ( Wilssens 2015 ), six years ( ORLA 2010 ), seven years ( Crerar 1996 ), or eight years ( Pulvermuller 2001 ). The duration of participants' aphasia was unavailable for other trials ( FUATAC ; SEMaFORE ; Smith 1981iii ; Yao 2005iii ).

Participants received therapy daily for an unclear time period ( Yao 2005iii ), for up to two hours ( Crerar 1996 ; SP‐I‐RiT ), or for three hours ( Meinzer 2007 ; Pulvermuller 2001 ). Participants receiving SLT weekly had cumulative sessions for up to 30 minutes ( Drummond 1981 ), 45 minutes ( FUATAC ), 1 hour ( Lincoln 1984b ), 1.5 hours ( Lincoln 1982i ; Smith 1981iii ), 2 hours ( Prins 1989 ; SEMaFORE ; Van Steenbrugge 1981 ; Woolf 2015i ), 3 hours ( Di Carlo 1980 ; FUATAC ; RATS ; Leal 1993 ; Shewan 1984i ), 4 hours ( Meikle 1979 ; NARNIA 2013 ; Smith 1981iii ), 5 hours ( Bakheit 2007 ; Denes 1996 ; MIT 2014i ; MIT 2014ii ; RATS‐2 ; SP‐I‐RiT ; VERSE II ), 6 hours ( Varley 2016ii ), 7 hours ( VERSE I ), 8 hours ( Wertz 1981 ), 9 hours ( B.A.Bar 2011ii ), 10 hours ( Crosson 2014 ; ORLA 2006 ; Wertz 1986iii ), 15 hours ( Wilssens 2015 ), or 20 hours ( Hinckley 2001 ). The duration of therapy ranged from 2 weeks ( Drummond 1981 ; Meinzer 2007 ; Wilssens 2015 ), 3 weeks ( Crerar 1996 ; Crosson 2014 ; SP‐I‐RiT ), 4 weeks ( Lincoln 1984b ; VERSE I ; Woolf 2015i ; Yao 2005iii ), 5 weeks ( Hinckley 2001 ; NARNIA 2013 ; Pulvermuller 2001 ; VERSE II ), 6 weeks ( FUATAC ; MIT 2014i ; ORLA 2006 ; SEMaFORE ; Varley 2016ii ), 8 weeks ( B.A.Bar 2011ii ; Lincoln 1982i ; Lincoln 1982ii ), 9 weeks ( Van Steenbrugge 1981 ), 10 weeks ( SP‐I‐RiT ), 12 weeks ( Bakheit 2007 ; MIT 2014ii ; Wertz 1986iii ), 30 weeks ( Di Carlo 1980 ), 5 months ( Prins 1989 ), up to 6 months ( Denes 1996 ; Leal 1993 ; RATS‐2 ), 9 months ( RATS ), 10 months ( Wertz 1981 ), one year ( Shewan 1984i ; Smith 1981iii ), or two years ( Meikle 1979 ). The self directed therapy intervention varied across participants in ORLA 2010 , with each participant receiving 24 hours of therapy over a mean treatment duration of 12.62 weeks (range 6 to 22 weeks), and in Varley 2016ii (means reported above).

There was a wide range of outcome measures used in this comparison, including measures of functional communication, receptive language, expressive language, severity of impairment, and psychosocial impact. Investigators carried out post‐treatment follow‐up assessments at five weeks ( NARNIA 2013 ), six weeks ( Wertz 1986iii ), eight weeks ( Sickert 2014 ; Varley 2016ii ), nine weeks ( Van Steenbrugge 1981 ), three months ( B.A.Bar 2011ii ; Bakheit 2007 ; Crosson 2014 ; SP‐I‐RiT ; VERSE II ; Wertz 1986iii ; Woolf 2015i ; Yao 2005iii ), six months ( VERSE I , VERSE II ), and 12 months ( Sickert 2014 ) .

Excluded studies

We excluded 65 studies. Reasons for exclusion were primarily due to inadequate randomisation and the unavailability of aphasia‐specific data (see details in the Characteristics of excluded studies table).

Risk of bias in included studies

Two review authors independently reviewed the methodological quality of the included studies and resolved disagreements through discussion. We present details in the 'Risk of bias' tables for each of the trials in the Characteristics of included studies table.

The number of randomised participants in included studies ranged from five participants in Rochon 2005 and Wu 2013 to 327 participants in Lincoln 1984a . Nine comparisons randomised 10 participants or fewer ( Crerar 1996 ; Drummond 1981 ; Rochon 2005 ; Van Steenbrugge 1981 ; Wilssens 2015 ; Woolf 2015i ; Woolf 2015ii ; Woolf 2015iii ; Wu 2013 ), 17 randomised between 11 and 20 participants ( B.A.Bar 2011i ; B.A.Bar 2011ii ; Crosson 2014 ; Denes 1996 ; Di Carlo 1980 ; Doesborgh 2004 ; Hinckley 2001 ; Lincoln 1982i ; Lincoln 1982ii ; Lincoln 1982iii ; Lincoln 1984b ; Mattioli 2014 ; Meinzer 2007 ; NARNIA 2013 ; ORLA 2006 ; Pulvermuller 2001 ; VERSE II ), 26 trials randomised up to 50 participants ( CACTUS 2013 ; Conklyn 2012 ; Elman 1999 ; FUATAC ; Katz 1997i ; Katz 1997ii ; Liu 2006a ; Lyon 1997 ; Meikle 1979 ; MIT 2014i ; MIT 2014ii ; ORLA 2010 ; Prins 1989 ; SEMaFORE ; Shewan 1984iii ; Smania 2006 ; Smith 1981i ; Smith 1981ii ; Smith 1981iii ; SP‐I‐RiT ; Szaflarski 2014 ; Varley 2016i ; Varley 2016ii ; Xie 2002 ; Zhang 2007i ; Zhang 2007ii ), 16 trials randomised between 51 and 100 participants ( Bakheit 2007 ; Leal 1993 ; MacKay 1988 ; RATS ; RATS‐2 ; Shewan 1984i ; Shewan 1984ii ; Sickert 2014 ; VERSE I ; Wertz 1981 ; Wertz 1986i ; Wertz 1986ii ; Wertz 1986iii ; Yao 2005i ; Yao 2005ii ; Yao 2005iii ), 2 trials randomised between 101 and 150 ( Laska 2011 ; Zhao 2000 ), and 4 randomised more than 150 participants ( ACTNoW 2011 ; David 1982 ; Lincoln 1984a ; Wu 2004 ) (see Table 6 ).

Of the 74 randomised comparisons, only 44 listed both inclusion and exclusion criteria. Details of exclusion criteria were unavailable for an additional 28 trials ( B.A.Bar 2011i ; B.A.Bar 2011ii ; Crerar 1996 ; Denes 1996 ; Di Carlo 1980 ; Hinckley 2001 ; Lincoln 1984b ; Lyon 1997 ; MacKay 1988 ; Meikle 1979 ; Meinzer 2007 ; ORLA 2006 ; Prins 1989 ; Rochon 2005 ; Szaflarski 2014 ; Van Steenbrugge 1981 ; Wertz 1981 ; Wertz 1986i ; Wertz 1986ii ; Wertz 1986iii ; Wu 2013 ; Xie 2002 ; Yao 2005i ; Yao 2005ii ; Yao 2005iii ; Zhang 2007i ; Zhang 2007ii ; Zhao 2000 ). Inclusion and exclusion criteria were unavailable for two trials ( Drummond 1981 ; Wu 2004 ) (see Characteristics of included studies table).

Suitable statistical data for communication outcomes were only available for 55 of the 74 trials. Appropriate statistical data for communication outcomes were not provided or could not be extracted in the remaining 18 randomised comparisons ( Conklyn 2012 ; Drummond 1981 ; Elman 1999 ; FUATAC ; Leal 1993 ; Lyon 1997 ; MacKay 1988 ; MIT 2014ii ; SEMaFORE ; Shewan 1984i ; Shewan 1984ii ; Shewan 1984iii ; Smith 1981i ; Smith 1981ii ; Smith 1981iii ; Szaflarski 2014 ; Wu 2004 ; Wu 2013 ). Nine of these trials contributed data on the trial dropouts or withdrawals ( Elman 1999 ; Leal 1993 ; MacKay 1988 ; Shewan 1984i ; Shewan 1984ii ; Shewan 1984iii ; Smith 1981i ; Smith 1981ii ; Smith 1981iii ).The nine remaining trials did not contribute any data to the review meta‐analyses ( Conklyn 2012 ; Drummond 1981 ; FUATAC ; Lyon 1997 ; MIT 2014ii ; SEMaFORE ; Szaflarski 2014 ; Wu 2004 ; Wu 2013 ). Psychosocial data were available for three trials ( ACTNoW 2011 ; Lincoln 1984a ; SP‐I‐RiT ).

There was a wide range of variation in the descriptions of the SLT interventions. Most reported the use of a conventional SLT approach or described an intervention, which reflects clinical practice where the therapist was responsible for design and content of the treatment delivered. Other trials evaluated more prescriptive SLT interventions (including volunteer‐facilitated therapy, intensive therapy, constraint‐induced asphasia therapy for example); we will describe these in later sections. We systematically extracted intervention details according to the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist ( Hoffmann 2014 ), communicating directly with the trialists to supplement published information where possible. We present these intervention detail in the Characteristics of included studies table.

Forty‐nine randomised comparisons reported similar groups at baseline. Comparison between the groups at baseline was unclear in 10 randomised comparisons ( FUATAC ; Lincoln 1984b ; Lyon 1997 ; MacKay 1988 ; SEMaFORE ; Wu 2004 ; Wu 2013 ; Yao 2005i ; Yao 2005ii ; Yao 2005iii ). For 15 randomised comparisons, the groups differed despite randomisation in relation to their time post onset ( Pulvermuller 2001 ), the severity or type of their stroke ( VERSE I ; VERSE II ), severity of their aphasia ( Smith 1981i ; Smith 1981ii ), sex ( Crerar 1996 ; MIT 2014i ; MIT 2014ii ; RATS‐2 ; Varley 2016ii ), and age ( David 1982 ; RATS ; Meinzer 2007 ; Prins 1989 ); in Meikle 1979 the participants that were allocated to SLT received more weeks of the intervention than the volunteer‐facilitated group (P = 0.01).

Details of the method of generating the randomisation sequence were only available for 32 of the 74 trials (see Figure 2 ; Figure 3 ). Twelve used random numbers tables ( Bakheit 2007 ; Conklyn 2012 ; David 1982 ; Katz 1997i ; Katz 1997ii ; Laska 2011 ; Lincoln 1982i ; Lincoln 1982ii ; Lincoln 1982iii ; Lincoln 1984a ; Lincoln 1984b ; Smania 2006 ), 20 used computer‐generated or web‐based sequence generation ( ACTNoW 2011 ; CACTUS 2013 ; Doesborgh 2004 ; Mattioli 2014 ; MIT 2014i ; MIT 2014ii ; NARNIA 2013 ; Varley 2016i ; Varley 2016i i; Pulvermuller 2001 ; RATS ; RATS‐2 ; SP‐I‐RiT ; Sickert 2014 ; VERSE I ; VERSE II ; Wilssens 2015 ; Woolf 2015i ; Woolf 2015ii ; Woolf 2015iii ), and one drew lots ( Crerar 1996 ). The remaining 42 trials stated that participants were randomly allocated but did not report any further details. Eight trials described stratifying participants by type or severity of aphasia ( ACTNoW 2011 ; CACTUS 2013 ; Crosson 2014 ; Leal 1993 ; Shewan 1984i ; Shewan 1984ii ; Shewan 1984iii ; SP‐I‐RiT ), and two stratified by recruitment site ( ACTNoW 2011 ; RATS‐2 ).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nCD000425-AFig-FIG02.jpg

'Risk of bias' graph: review authors' judgements about each 'Risk of bias' item presented as percentages across all included studies.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nCD000425-AFig-FIG03.jpg

'Risk of bias' summary: review authors' judgements about each 'Risk of bias' item for each included study.

Details of the allocation concealment were available for 31 of the 74 trials (see Figure 2 and Figure 3 ). Nineteen used sequentially numbered sealed envelopes or similar methods of allocation and were considered to be adequately concealed ( Bakheit 2007 ; CACTUS 2013 ; Conklyn 2012 ; David 1982 ; Doesborgh 2004 ; Lincoln 1984a ; MIT 2014i ; MIT 2014ii ; NARNIA 2013 ; RATS ; SP‐I‐RiT ; Sickert 2014 ; Varley 2016i ; Varley 2016i i; VERSE II ; Wilssens 2015 ; Woolf 2015i ; Woolf 2015ii ; Woolf 2015iii ). Five described using an allocation service that was external to the trial team ( ACTNoW 2011 ; Laska 2011 ; RATS‐2 ; SEMaFORE ; VERSE I ). Seven described a trialist‐led allocation method that inadequately concealed allocation to the groups ( Crerar 1996 ; Lincoln 1982i ; Lincoln 1982ii ; Lincoln 1982iii ; Lincoln 1984b ; Mattioli 2014 ; Smania 2006 ).

Due to the nature of SLT, it is difficult to blind either the patient or the person carrying out the intervention. However, blinding of the outcome assessor is possible and should be in place to avert detection bias. More than half of the included trials (43/74) reported blinding of outcome assessors (see Figure 2 and Figure 3 ). In other cases, blinding was partially in place. The method of assessment ensured blinding in some of the outcome measures for three trials ( Crerar 1996 ; Lincoln 1984b ; RATS‐2 ), while six additional trials ensured blinding of a second assessor who checked a proportion of measurements scores ( Katz 1997i ; Katz 1997ii ; Rochon 2005 ; Woolf 2015i ; Woolf 2015ii ; Woolf 2015iii ). Four trial reports acknowledged the possibility that measures may have been confounded to some extent by indications from the participants being assessed as to which group they were attending ( ACTNoW 2011 ; David 1982 ; MIT 2014i ; MIT 2014ii ). This is likely to have occurred but went unreported in several other trials as well.

Blinding was unclear for 20 trials ( Crosson 2014 ; Di Carlo 1980 ; Drummond 1981 ; FUATAC ; Hinckley 2001 ; Lincoln 1984b ; Liu 2006a ; MIT 2014i ; MIT 2014ii ; ORLA 2006 ; ORLA 2010 ; Prins 1989 ; RATS‐2 ; Shewan 1984i ; Shewan 1984ii ; Shewan 1984iii ; Van Steenbrugge 1981 ; Wilssens 2015 ; Wu 2013 ; Zhao 2000 ), and we considered it inadequate in 11 trials ( Doesborgh 2004 ; Elman 1999 ; Lyon 1997 ; Meikle 1979 ; Rochon 2005 ; Smith 1981i ; Smith 1981ii ; Smith 1981iii ; Woolf 2015i ; Woolf 2015ii ; Woolf 2015iii ).

Incomplete outcome data

Overall, 25% of the 3002 participants randomised across the 74 comparisons included in this review withdrew from the intervention (N = 518 participants) or were lost to follow‐up (N = 254 participants). By specific comparisons, of the 1620 participants in the SLT versus no SLT comparison, 235 (15%) withdrew from the treatment phase of the studies: 116 from the SLT interventions and 117 from the 'no SLT' allocation. In addition, 46 participants were lost during the follow‐up assessment phase (21 withdrawing from the SLT groups and 25 from the 'no SLT' groups). The trials that compared SLT with social support and stimulation randomised a total of 447 participants, but 105 participants (23%) were lost during the treatment phase (40 from the SLT group and 65 from the social support groups). Twenty‐five additional participants were not included in the follow‐up ( David 1982 ; Elman 1999 ). The final comparison of SLT A versus SLT B involved 1242 randomised participants. A total of 224 participants (18%) withdrew from these trials during the treatment phase, with an additional 90 withdrawing from the follow‐up phase. Across the review, studies reported an additional five participants withdrawing from a trial, but it was unclear to which group(s) those participants were allocated ( Smith 1981i ; Smith 1981ii ; Smith 1981iii ). Participants in Meikle 1979 remained in the trial until two successful estimations on an outcome measure showed no appreciable improvement, until participants requested withdrawal, or until the end of the trial; however, authors gave no further details. Where available, we present details of dropouts in Table 7 .

ANELT : Amsterdam‐Nijmegen Everyday Language Test; SLT : speech and language therapy.

Selective reporting

Recruitment and retention of stroke rehabilitation trial participants is known to be a challenge, and the trials in this review were no exception. However, seven trials only reported data (including demographic data) from participants that remained in the trial at the end of treatment or at follow‐up. David 1982 reported data from 133 of 155 randomised participants, Doesborgh 2004 reported 18 of 19 randomised participants, Katz 1997i reported 36 of 42 randomised participants, Katz 1997ii reported 40 of 42 randomised participants, Lincoln 1984a reported 191 of 327 randomised participants, MacKay 1988 reported 95 of 96 randomised participants, and Smania 2006 reported 33 of 41 randomised participants.

We considered most included studies (54/74) to be at low risk of reporting bias (see Figure 2 and Figure 3 ). We judged 11 studies as having an unclear risk of reporting bias ( Conklyn 2012 ; Drummond 1981 ; Elman 1999 ; Leal 1993 ; SEMaFORE ; Smania 2006 ; Szaflarski 2014 ; Wertz 1981 ; Zhang 2007i ; Zhang 2007ii ; Zhao 2000 ), and we considered eight trials to be at high risk of reporting bias ( FUATAC ; MacKay 1988 ; Smith 1981i ; Smith 1981ii ; Smith 1981iii ; Wu 2004 ; Wu 2013 ; Xie 2002 ). We provide details of the reporting bias in the Characteristics of included studies .

Twelve trials reported using ITT analysis ( ACTNoW 2011 ; Bakheit 2007 ; CACTUS 2013 ; Laska 2011 ; MIT 2014i ; MIT 2014ii ; RATS ; RATS‐2 ; SP‐I‐RiT ; Varley 2016i ; Varley 2016ii , VERSE I ). Not all participants appeared to be included in the final analyses within two trials ( Bakheit 2007 ; RATS ). In addition, 28 trials that reported participants that had dropped out did not report using ITT analysis ( David 1982 ; Doesborgh 2004 ; Elman 1999 ; Katz 1997i ; Katz 1997ii ; Leal 1993 ; Lincoln 1982i ; Lincoln 1982ii ; Lincoln 1982iii ; Lincoln 1984a ; MacKay 1988 ; Mattioli 2014 ; Meikle 1979 ; Pulvermuller 2001 ; SEMaFORE ; Shewan 1984i ; Shewan 1984ii ; Shewan 1984iii ; Sickert 2014 ; Smania 2006 ; Smith 1981i ; Smith 1981ii ; Smith 1981iii ; VERSE II ; Wertz 1981 ; Wertz 1986i ; Wertz 1986ii ; Wertz 1986iii ). We were unable to clarify the number of drop‐outs in three trials ( Conklyn 2012 ; FUATAC ; Szaflarski 2014 ). All randomised participants were included in the final analyses for the remaining 31 trials.

Other potential sources of bias

Some trials that compared the effects of SLT with no SLT also reported co‐interventions. Two groups that received SLT also received acupuncture ( Liu 2006a ; Zhang 2007ii ). Some participants in Doesborgh 2004 received additional psychosocial group therapy, and some (or all) of the participants reported in Smith 1981i may have benefited from other intensive treatment as part of the larger multidisciplinary stroke trial. In both cases, the number and allocation of the participants and specific details of the co‐intervention were unavailable. In other cases, not all participants received the planned number of treatment sessions ( Laska 2011 ; Lincoln 1984a ; Smith 1981i ; Smith 1981ii ).

Similarly, 11 trials that compared two different approaches with SLT provision reported that not all participants received the planned number of treatment sessions ( Bakheit 2007 ; Lincoln 1982i ; Lincoln 1982ii ; Meikle 1979; MIT 2014i ; MIT 2014ii ; RATS‐2 ; Smith 1981iii ; SP‐I‐RiT ; VERSE I ; VERSE II ). Meikle 1979 reported that 5 of the 16 participants receiving conventional SLT missed up to half of their possible treatment. Six trials comparing a high‐intensity SLT with a low‐intensity SLT also reported difficulties providing intensive SLT interventions as planned. For example, Bakheit 2007 reported that only 13 of the 51 participants received 80% or more of the planned intensive intervention. Smith 1981iii reported that participants allocated to intensive therapy only received an average of 21 hours of therapy compared to the planned minimum of 50 hours during the first three months. Such difficulties in maintaining a clear distinction between the two treatment groups has significant implications when evaluating the results and considering the clinical implications of such treatment regimens. Similarly, VERSE I found that six individuals did not reach the intensive SLT intervention target of 2.5 hours, but they also reported that resource limitations in the conventional acute care service meant that 23 individuals in the usual care group failed to receive the maximum once weekly therapy as allocated. ORLA 2010 reported difficulty maintaining a consistent intensity of treatment across two treatment arms, with some participants choosing to have more of the allocated 24 treatment sessions per week than others.

Though all the speech and language therapists in Hinckley 2001 received training in the characteristics of the two treatment approaches being compared, treatment review processes were in place to minimise any possible risk of overlap in therapy approach. ACTNoW 2011 , Woolf 2015i , Woolf 2015ii , and Woolf 2015iii employed a similar monitoring approach to ensure fidelity to the planned interventions. The computer‐based intervention used in Varley 2016i and Varley 2016ii recorded the self directed computer treatment activity and duration. Data from three randomised comparisons were subgroups of participants with aphasia extracted from within a larger trial examining models of stroke care ( Smith 1981i ; Smith 1981ii ; Smith 1981iii ). Being part of a larger stroke trial may have affected their levels of fatigue and ability to participate fully in the SLT intervention. The main trial described the inclusion of 20 participants with mild dementia, but it is unclear whether any of these individuals were included in the aphasia‐specific data.

Effects of interventions

See: Table 1 ; Table 2 ; Table 3 ; Table 4 ; Table 5

The results of this review are presented below within the three comparisons: SLT versus no SLT, SLT versus social support and stimulation, and SLT A versus SLT B. Where data availability permitted, we also report results from meta‐analyses. As described in the Measures of treatment effect section, we extracted the final value scores for inclusion within this review whenever possible. Change‐from‐baseline data were also available for three trials, but we do not present them in the review ( Denes 1996 ; Hinckley 2001 ; RATS ).

Comparison 1: SLT versus no SLT

A total of 1620 participants were randomised across 27 comparisons that assessed SLT versus no SLT ( B.A.Bar 2011i ; CACTUS 2013 ; Conklyn 2012 ; Doesborgh 2004 ; Katz 1997i ; Katz 1997ii ; Laska 2011 ; Lincoln 1984a ; Liu 2006a ; Lyon 1997 ; MacKay 1988 ; Mattioli 2014 ; Smania 2006 ; Smith 1981i ; Smith 1981ii ; Szaflarski 2014 ; Varley 2016i ; Wertz 1986i ; Wertz 1986ii ; Wu 2004 ; Wu 2013 ; Xie 2002 ; Yao 2005i ; Yao 2005ii ; Zhang 2007i ; Zhang 2007ii ; Zhao 2000 ). Reporting of age and other participant characteristics varied between trials, making it difficult to give an overview of the participants involved in this comparison. Eight trials reported age ranges, spanning 28 to 94 years of age ( CACTUS 2013 ; Laska 2011 ; Lincoln 1984a ; Lyon 1997 ; Mattioli 2014 ; Smania 2006 ; Varley 2016i ; Wu 2004 ), while others reported participants' mean age or age bands ( Table 6 ). Nineteen trials reported the length of time since onset of aphasia: spanning from two days in Mattioli 2014 to 29 years in CACTUS 2013 . The shortest mean length of time since the onset of participants' aphasia was 2.2 (SD 1.3) days ( Mattioli 2014 ). Fourteen trials reported severity of aphasia ( B.A.Bar 2011i ; CACTUS 2013 ; Doesborgh 2004 ; Katz 1997i ; Katz 1997ii ; Laska 2011 ; Liu 2006a ; Mattioli 2014 ; Smith 1981i ; Smith 1981ii ; Wertz 1986i ; Wertz 1986ii ; Zhang 2007i ; Zhang 2007ii ), although three additional trials provided some indication of severity of impairment ( Conklyn 2012 ; Lyon 1997 ; Smania 2006 ) ( Table 6 ).

Among the SLT interventions compared to a 'no SLT' group were interventions considered to be conventional SLT ( Liu 2006a ; Mattioli 2014 ; Smania 2006 ; Smith 1981ii ; Wertz 1986i ; Wu 2004 ; Wu 2013 ; Xie 2002 ; Yao 2005ii ; Zhang 2007i ; Zhang 2007ii ; Zhao 2000 ), computer‐mediated SLT ( B.A.Bar 2011i ; CACTUS 2013 ; Doesborgh 2004 ; Katz 1997i ; Katz 1997ii ; Varley 2016i ), group SLT ( Yao 2005i ), functional SLT ( Lyon 1997 ), intensive SLT ( Laska 2011 ; Smith 1981i ; Szaflarski 2014 ), language enrichment therapy ( Laska 2011 ), constraint‐induced aphasia therapy ( Szaflarski 2014 ), melodic intonation therapy ( Conklyn 2012 ), SLT plus operant training ( Lincoln 1984a ), independent training ( B.A.Bar 2011i ; Varley 2016i ), and volunteer‐facilitated SLT ( CACTUS 2013 ; MacKay 1988 ; Wertz 1986ii ). We planned to conduct a sensitivity analysis on trials that involved the provision of SLT by non‐speech and language therapists ( Conklyn 2012 ; Liu 2006a ; MacKay 1988 ; Wertz 1986ii ; Xie 2002 ; Yao 2005i ; Yao 2005ii ; Zhang 2007i ; Zhang 2007ii ; Zhao 2000 ), but because of the present availability of data within each outcome, it was not useful to undertake this analysis.

Appropriate summary data for communication outcomes (allowing inclusion in the meta‐analyses) were available for 17 of the 27 trials ( B.A.Bar 2011i ; CACTUS 2013 ; Doesborgh 2004 ; Katz 1997i ; Katz 1997ii ; Liu 2006a ; Lincoln 1984a ; Mattioli 2014 ; Smania 2006 ; Varley 2016i ; Wertz 1986i ; Wertz 1986ii ; Yao 2005i ; Yao 2005ii ; Zhang 2007i ; Zhang 2007ii ; Zhao 2000 ). In addition, Lincoln 1984a also reported statistical data for psychosocial outcomes. Suitable communication outcome summary data were not reported (or available on request) for the remaining nine trials ( Conklyn 2012 , Lyon 1997 ; MacKay 1988 ; Szaflarski 2014 ; Smith 1981i ; Smith 1981ii ; Wu 2004 ; Wu 2013 ; Xie 2002 ). However, Xie 2002 presented some summary data in a table that indicated language function at end of the trial intervention on a scale (no effect, progress, obvious effect, recovery), and using this data, we constructed means and standard deviation data by assigning numerical values (0 to 3) to each scale point. However, we noted that the presentation of the table did not match the description of results in the text; in fact, the table reported an adverse intervention effect and deterioration over time, which we believe was an error that was rectified by inverting the scale reported. Where data for this comparison were available, we present them below in relation to: functional communication, receptive language, expressive language, severity of impairment, psychosocial impact, number of dropouts, adherence to allocated intervention, and economic outcomes.

1. Functional communication

Thirteen trials compared participants that received SLT with those that did not, by measuring functional communication outcomes ( B.A.Bar 2011i ; Doesborgh 2004 ; Katz 1997i ; Katz 1997ii ; Mattioli 2014 ; Laska 2011 ; Lincoln 1984a ; Lyon 1997 ; MacKay 1988 ; Wertz 1986i ; Wertz 1986ii ; Zhang 2007i ; Zhang 2007ii ). Tools used included the spontaneous speech subtest of the Western Aphasia Battery (WAB) ( Katz 1997i ; Katz 1997ii ), the Amsterdam‐Nijmegen Everyday Language Test (ANELT) ( B.A.Bar 2011i ; Doesborgh 2004 ; Laska 2011 ), the AAT (spontaneous speech) ( Mattioli 2014 ) the Communication Activities of Daily Living (CADL) ( Wertz 1986i ; Wertz 1986ii ), the Functional Communication Profile (FCP) ( Lincoln 1984a ; Wertz 1986i ; Wertz 1986ii ), the Aachen‐Sprach‐Analysis ( B.A.Bar 2011i ), and the Chinese Functional Communication Profile ( Zhang 2007i ; Zhang 2007ii ). Ten trials provided suitable statistical data permitting inclusion within the meta‐analyses ( B.A.Bar 2011i ; Doesborgh 2004 ; Katz 1997i ; Katz 1997ii ; Laska 2011 ; Mattioli 2014 ; Wertz 1986i ; Wertz 1986ii ; Zhang 2007i ; Zhang 2007ii ).

Spontaneous speech

Six trials evaluated the impact of SLT by contrasting the spontaneous speech of participants. Intervention groups received computer‐mediated SLT in four trials ( B.A.Bar 2011i ; Doesborgh 2004 ; Katz 1997i ; Katz 1997ii ), and they received language enrichment therapy in two ( Laska 2011 ; Mattioli 2014 ). Control groups received no intervention in Doesborgh 2004 , Katz 1997i , Laska 2011 , and Mattioli 2014 , and they received computer‐mediated non‐linguistic tasks in B.A.Bar 2011i and Katz 1997ii ). Investigators carried out comparisons using a subtest of the WAB ( Katz 1997i ; Katz 1997ii ), the ANELT ( B.A.Bar 2011i ; Doesborgh 2004 ; Laska 2011 ), or the AAT ( Mattioli 2014 ).

Communication Activities of Daily Living (CADL)

Four trials used the CADL to compare the functional communication skills of participants that received conventional SLT ( Wertz 1986i ), volunteer‐facilitated SLT ( MacKay 1988 ; Wertz 1986ii ), and functional SLT ( Lyon 1997 ), versus those that received no SLT intervention. Two trials provided statistical data that allowed inclusion within a meta‐analysis ( Wertz 1986i ; Wertz 1986ii ).

Functional Communication Profile (FCP)

Three trials compared the pragmatic provision of SLT (approach tailored to individual participants' needs) to a deferred SLT intervention using the FCP ( Lincoln 1984a ; Wertz 1986i ; Wertz 1986ii ). Appropriate summary data for Lincoln 1984a on this outcome measure were not available.

Chinese Functional Communication Profile (CFCP)

Zhang 2007i and Zhang 2007ii used the CFCP to compare groups that received SLT and no SLT. One SLT group also received an acupuncture co‐intervention and scored higher on the CFCP than those that had received no SLT ( Zhang 2007ii ).

We pooled the results of functional communication measures reported across the trials within a meta‐analysis. We only included one set of functional communication measures from Wertz 1986i and Wertz 1986ii at a time. Participants that received SLT performed better on measures of functional communication than those that did not receive SLT (when including the CADL data: P = 0.03, SMD 0.23, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.44 or when including FCP data: P = 0.01, SMD 0.28, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.49). We have chosen to present the data from the FCP within the forest plot ( Analysis 1.1 ).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nCD000425-CMP-001-01.jpg

Comparison 1 SLT versus no SLT, Outcome 1 Functional communication.

2. Receptive language

Twelve of the 27 trials measured participants' receptive language skills ( CACTUS 2013 , Katz 1997i ; Katz 1997ii ; Laska 2011 ; Mattioli 2014 ; Smania 2006 ; Varley 2016i ; Wertz 1986i ; Wertz 1986ii ; Xie 2002 ; Zhang 2007i ; Zhang 2007ii ), and all but two reported statistical data that permitted inclusion in the meta‐analyses ( Varley 2016i ; Xie 2002 ). We calculated suitable summary data from Xie 2002 's published table of results (as described above). Investigators assessed auditory comprehension using the Token Test and subtests of the WAB, the Norsk Grunntest for Afasi (NGA), the Aphasia Battery of Chinese (ABC), the Comprehensive Aphasia Test (CAT), and the PICA. Reading comprehension was measured using the Reading Comprehension Battery for Aphasia (RCBA) and the reading subtests of the PICA, the CAT, and the ABC. Gesture comprehension was measured using an unnamed assessment.

Auditory comprehension

Five trials used the Token Test to measure changes in participants' auditory comprehension ( CACTUS 2013 , Mattioli 2014 ; Smania 2006 ; Wertz 1986i ; Wertz 1986ii ). Two trials used the ABC auditory comprehension subtest ( Zhang 2007i ; Zhang 2007ii ). Laska 2011 reported using the NGA, CACTUS 2013 the CAT spoken word and spoken sentence subtests, and Mattioli 2014 the AAT subtest. Two trials used both the WAB and PICA subtests to measure participants' auditory comprehension ( Katz 1997i ; Katz 1997ii ). We could not include both sets of data from Katz 1997i ; Katz 1997ii , CACTUS 2013 and Mattioli 2014 in the same meta‐analysis. On pooling the data within two separate meta‐analyses, there was no evidence of a significant difference between the groups. We have chosen to present the PICA ( Katz 1997i ; Katz 1997ii ), the CAT (spoken sentence comprehension subtest), and Token Test data ( Mattioli 2014 ) within the forest plot ( Analysis 1.2 ). For pooled analyses using the Mattioli 2014 AAT data and the Katz 1997i and Katz 1997ii WAB data, there was no evidence of a difference between the groups (P = 0.57, SMD 0.06, 95% CI −0.15 to 0.26).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nCD000425-CMP-001-02.jpg

Comparison 1 SLT versus no SLT, Outcome 2 Receptive language: auditory comprehension.

Reading comprehension

Nine trials assessed reading comprehension, comparing participants that received SLT and those that did not ( CACTUS 2013 , Katz 1997i ; Katz 1997ii ; Meikle 1979 ; Varley 2016i ; Wertz 1986i ; Wertz 1986ii ; Zhang 2007i ; Zhang 2007ii ). Two trials used the RCBA to compare participants that received volunteer‐facilitated SLT with those that received no SLT ( Wertz 1986i ; Wertz 1986ii ). Similarly, two trials used the PICA reading subtest to compare participants that received computer‐mediated SLT to those that received no treatment or computer‐mediated non‐linguistic tasks ( Katz 1997i ; Katz 1997ii ). Another three trials compared the performance of participants that received SLT with those that did not using the reading subtest of the ABC ( Zhang 2007i ; Zhang 2007ii ), subtests from the CAT (written word or sentence comprehension; CACTUS 2013 ), or the AAT reading comprehension subtest ( Mattioli 2014 ). Varley 2016i did not report data suitable for inclusion in the meta‐analysis. The participants that received SLT in Zhang 2007ii also received an acupuncture co‐intervention. On pooling of the available data with the CAT data on written word comprehension, the participants that received SLT performed better on tests of reading comprehension than those that did not receive SLT (P = 0.03, SMD 0.29, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.55; CACTUS 2013 ; Analysis 1.3 ). If pooling data from CACTUS 2013 CAT subtest of written sentence comprehension, there was no longer evidence of a difference between the groups (P = 0.05; SMD 0.03, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.52). Plotting these outcome measures against the estimated standard errors within a funnel plot, we found that the result from one of the trials based on the ABC fell outside the 95% CI ( Figure 4 ). We will consider this issue further in the Discussion section.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nCD000425-AFig-FIG04.jpg

Funnel plot of comparison: 1 SLT versus no SLT, outcome: 1.3 Receptive language: reading comprehension.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nCD000425-CMP-001-03.jpg

Comparison 1 SLT versus no SLT, Outcome 3 Receptive language: reading comprehension.

Other comprehension

Four trials used the PICA gestural subtest, which measures gestural abilities alongside auditory and written comprehension skills ( Katz 1997i ; Katz 1997ii ; Wertz 1986i ; Wertz 1986ii ). Xie 2002 employed the Chinese Language Impairment Examination. Following pooling, participants that received SLT had achieved higher scores on measures of gesture use than the groups that received no SLT (P = 0.03, SMD 1.23, 95% CI 0.11 to 2.36). However, we also observed significant heterogeneity (P < 0.00001; I 2 = 91%) which was no longer observed when the Xie 2002 data was removed from the meta‐analysis, al though this did not impact on the findings (P = 0.04, SMD 0.34, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.67) ( Analysis 1.4 ).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nCD000425-CMP-001-04.jpg

Comparison 1 SLT versus no SLT, Outcome 4 Receptive language: other.

3. Expressive language

Twelve trials formally evaluated participants' expressive language skills using single word picture naming (Boston Naming Test (BNT), the WAB and NGA naming subtests, the AAT, the Object and Action Naming Battery or other naming tests), repetition (WAB and NGA repetition subtests), and other verbal expression (PICA and ABC sub tests) skills ( CACTUS 2013 ; Doesborgh 2004 ; Katz 1997i ; Katz 1997ii ; Laska 2011 ; Mattioli 2014 ; Szaflarski 2014 ; Varley 2016i ; Wertz 1986i ; Wertz 1986ii ; Zhang 2007i ; Zhang 2007ii ). Written language expressive skills were measured using the PICA copying and writing subtests and the ABC writing subtest, while the ability to communicate using gesture was measured using the PICA gesture subtest.

Expressive language: naming

Eight trials measured participants' naming abilities ( CACTUS 2013 ; Doesborgh 2004 ; Katz 1997i ; Katz 1997ii ; Laska 2011 Mattioli 2014 ; Szaflarski 2014 ; Varley 2016i ). Three trials used the BNT or naming accuracy (treated, matched and control items) to compare a group receiving computer‐mediated SLT or constraint‐induced aphasia therapy versus a group that did not receive SLT ( Doesborgh 2004 ; Szaflarski 2014 ; Varley 2016i ). Data from Szaflarski 2014 were not available at the time of this review. Katz 1997i and Katz 1997ii employed the WAB naming subtest, while Laska 2011 used the NGA naming subtest, Mattioli 2014 used the AAT subtest, and CACTUS 2013 used items from the Object and Action Naming Battery. On pooling, there was no evidence of a difference between the groups regardless of whether the treated, matched or control items from Varley 2016i were included in the analysis. We present the meta‐analysis that includes the matched items from Varley 2016i (P = 0.26, SMD 0.14, 95% CI −0.10 to 0.38; Analysis 1.5 ).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nCD000425-CMP-001-05.jpg

Comparison 1 SLT versus no SLT, Outcome 5 Expressive language: naming.

Expressive language: general

Five trials used the PICA verbal subtest to compare the spoken language skills of patient groups that received SLT and those that did not ( Katz 1997i ; Katz 1997ii ; Wertz 1986i ; Wertz 1986ii ; Xie 2002 ). Two additional trials captured participants' expressive language skills using a subtest of the ABC ( Zhang 2007i ; Zhang 2007ii ). On pooling the data using SMDs, there was evidence of significant statistical heterogeneity between the groups (P < 0.00001; I 2 = 89%), so we used a random‐effects model to pool the data. Participants that had received SLT scored significantly better on general measures of expressive language skills (P = 0.005, SMD 1.28, 95% CI 0.38 to 2.19) ( Analysis 1.6 ). Conducting a sensitivity analysis, we found that when we removed Xie 2002 , Zhang 2007i , and Zhang 2007ii from the analysis, the heterogeneity disappeared (I 2 = 0%), and the pooled results no longer demonstrated a significant difference between the groups. We will consider this issue further in the Discussion section.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nCD000425-CMP-001-06.jpg

Comparison 1 SLT versus no SLT, Outcome 6 Expressive language: general.

Expressive language: written

Eight trials reported comparing a group receiving SLT with a group receiving no SLT using writing subtests of the PICA ( Katz 1997i ; Katz 1997ii ), the ABC ( Zhang 2007i ; Zhang 2007ii ), the AAT ( Mattioli 2014 ), the CAT ( CACTUS 2013 ), and the PICA graphic subtest ( Wertz 1986i ; Wertz 1986ii ). Following pooling, participants that had received SLT performed better on the writing subtests than those that had not received SLT (P = 0.003, SMD 0.41, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.67) ( Analysis 1.7 ). Plotting these outcome measures against the estimated standard errors within a funnel plot, we found that the result from one of the trials based on the ABC fell outside the 95% CI ( Figure 5 ). We will consider this issue further in the Discussion section.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nCD000425-AFig-FIG05.jpg

Funnel plot of comparison: 1 SLT versus no SLT, outcome: 1.7 Expressive language: written.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nCD000425-CMP-001-07.jpg

Comparison 1 SLT versus no SLT, Outcome 7 Expressive language: written.

Expressive language: copying text

Two trials compared a group receiving computer‐mediated SLT with a group receiving no SLT or a group receiving computer‐mediated non‐linguistic tasks using the PICA copying subtest ( Katz 1997i ; Katz 1997ii ). There was no evidence of a difference between the groups' copying skills ( Analysis 1.8 ).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nCD000425-CMP-001-08.jpg

Comparison 1 SLT versus no SLT, Outcome 8 Expressive language: written copying.

Expressive language: repetition

Four trials compared participants that received SLT and those that did not by measuring their repetition skills on the WAB subtest ( Katz 1997i ; Katz 1997ii ), the NGA subtest ( Laska 2011 ), and a repetition accuracy test ( Varley 2016i ). Following pooling of the available data (using the matched items from Varley 2016i ), there was no evidence of a difference in the participants' repetition skills ( Analysis 1.9 ). This did not alter if the treated or control items were used from Varley 2016i .

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nCD000425-CMP-001-09.jpg

Comparison 1 SLT versus no SLT, Outcome 9 Expressive language: repetition.

Expressive language: fluency

B.A.Bar 2011i measured changes in word fluency using the Regensburg Word Fluency Test (food and animals). Szaflarski 2014 used the Semantic Fluency Test, but there were no data available. There was no evidence of a difference between the groups ( Analysis 1.10 ).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nCD000425-CMP-001-10.jpg

Comparison 1 SLT versus no SLT, Outcome 10 Expressive language: fluency.

4. Severity of impairment

Seventeen trials compared a group that received SLT with one that did not receive any SLT by measuring the severity of the participants' aphasia impairment. Language assessment batteries included the PICA ( Katz 1997i ; Katz 1997ii ; Lincoln 1984a ; Wertz 1986i ; Wertz 1986ii ), the Boston Diagnostic Aphasia Examination (BDAE) ( Liu 2006a ; Lyon 1997 , Wu 2013 ), the Chinese Aphasia Measurement ( Zhao 2000 ), the WAB ( Katz 1997i ; Katz 1997ii ; Wu 2013 ), the Minnesota Test for Differential Diagnosis of Aphasia (MTDDA) ( Smith 1981i ; Smith 1981ii ), the NGA ( Laska 2011 ), the Chinese Rehabilitation Research Centre Aphasia Examination (CRRCAE) ( Wu 2013 ; Yao 2005i ; Yao 2005ii ), the Aphasia Battery of Chinese (ABC) ( Zhang 2007i ; Zhang 2007ii ), and the Chinese Language Impairment Examination ( Xie 2002 ). Included trials compared the severity of participants' aphasia between groups that received group SLT ( Yao 2005i ), computer‐mediated SLT ( Katz 1997i ; Katz 1997ii ), conventional SLT ( Liu 2006a ; Wertz 1986i ; Wu 2013 , Yao 2005ii ; Zhang 2007i ; Zhang 2007ii ; Zhao 2000 ), language training ( Xie 2002 ), and volunteer‐facilitated SLT ( Wertz 1986ii ), versus groups that received no SLT or a computer‐mediated non‐SLT intervention ( Katz 1997ii ). We were able to obtain statistical summary data suitable for inclusion within a meta‐analysis from all but six trials ( Lincoln 1984a ; Lyon 1997 ; Smith 1981i ; Smith 1981ii ; Xie 2002 ; Wu 2013 ).

Pooling the available data (selectively including the PICA data from Katz 1997i and Katz 1997ii ) using SMDs, we observed significant heterogeneity (I 2 = 93%, P < 0.00001). Thus, we pooled the data using a random‐effects model. The heterogeneity remained. There was no evidence of a significant difference between the groups that received SLT and those that did not ( Analysis 1.11 ). On conducting a sensitivity analysis to identify the source of the heterogeneity, we observed that removing the Zhao 2000 data from the meta‐analysis eliminated the heterogeneity (I 2 = 0%). The pooled data also demonstrated no significant difference between the aphasia severity ratings between the groups regardless of whether the PICA data from Katz 1997i and Katz 1997ii were included (P = 0.08, SMD 0.17, 95% CI −0.02 to 0.36). Conducting the same analysis but including the WAB data from Katz 1997i and Katz 1997ii resulted in no evidence of a significant difference between the groups (P = 0.09, SMD 0.15, 95% CI −0.04 to 0.34). We have chosen to present the PICA data ( Analysis 1.11 ). The funnel plot of Analysis 1.11 ( Figure 6 ) showed that the outcome based on the Chinese Aphasia Measurement fell outside the 95% CI. We will return to this issue within the Discussion section.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nCD000425-AFig-FIG06.jpg

Funnel plot of comparison: 1 SLT versus no SLT, outcome: 1.11 Severity of impairment: Aphasia Battery Score (+ PICA).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nCD000425-CMP-001-11.jpg

Comparison 1 SLT versus no SLT, Outcome 11 Severity of impairment: Aphasia Battery Score (+ PICA).

Five trials compared the benefits of an SLT intervention to no SLT by employing psychosocial measures including the Multiple Affect Adjective Checklist (MAACL), the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ), the Affect Balance Scale (ABS), the Psychological Wellbeing Index, the EuroQoL, and the Nottingham Health Profile (NHP) ( Laska 2011 ; Lincoln 1984a ; Lyon 1997 ; Smith 1981i ; Smith 1981ii ).

Lyon 1997 used the ABS and Psychological Wellbeing Index to compare a group of triads (person with aphasia, caregiver and communication partner) that received functional SLT aiming to establish and maximise effective means of communication between communication partners and a group that received no SLT. Smith 1981i and Smith 1981ii used the GHQ to compare groups that received either intensive SLT or conventional SLT with a group that received no treatment, while Laska 2001 reported capturing data using the EuroQol and the NHP. No suitable data were available from these trials. In contrast, Lincoln 1984a used the anxiety, depression and hostility scales of the MAACL to compare the psychosocial well‐being of a group that received SLT (determined by the therapist) with a group that received no SLT. Comparison of the groups failed to show any evidence of a difference in the participants' anxiety, depression or hostility as measured on these scales ( Analysis 1.12 ).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nCD000425-CMP-001-12.jpg

Comparison 1 SLT versus no SLT, Outcome 12 Mood: MAACL.

6. Number of dropouts

Information relating to the numbers of participant dropouts (where they occurred) was available for all but two trials in this comparison ( Conklyn 2012 , Szaflarski 2014 ). A total of 235 individuals withdrew during the treatment phase . Thirteen trials reported no withdrawals ( B.A.Bar 2011i ; CACTUS 2013 ; Liu 2006a ; Lyon 1997 ; Mattioli 2014 ; Wu 2004 ; Wu 2013 , Xie 2002 , Yao 2005i ; Yao 2005ii ; Zhang 2007i ; Zhang 2007ii ; Zhao 2000 ). An additional five participants withdrew from Smith 1981i and Smith 1981ii (group allocation is unclear, but these withdrawals are included in the number above), and they failed to report the number of withdrawals from the 'no SLT' group. There was a range of reasons for the attrition of participants from the trials (see Table 7 for details). On pooling of the available data relating to dropouts, there was no evidence of a difference between the groups ( Analysis 1.14 ).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nCD000425-CMP-001-14.jpg

Comparison 1 SLT versus no SLT, Outcome 14 Number of dropouts (any reason).

7. Adherence to allocated intervention

Only 5 of the 15 trials reporting participant dropouts described the reasons for the 26 participants' withdrawal ( CACTUS 2013 ; Doesborgh 2004 ; Laska 2011 ; Smania 2006 ; Varley 2016i ). Of these, a total of 21 participants were described as withdrawing because they were uncooperative or they refused the allocated treatment with nine withdrawing from the conventional SLT group and 12 withdrawing from the 'no SLT' group. Four participants in Laska 2011 refused testing (one from the SLT group; three from the no SLT group). Details can be found in Table 7 . On pooling there was no indication of a difference in adherence rates between the groups.

8. Economic outcomes

Two of the 19 randomised comparisons described the measurement of economic outcomes: MacKay 1988 using structured questionnaires and CACTUS 2013 the EQ‐5D (and the patient visual analogue scale (VAS)) and resource use (diary based). Only data from CACTUS 2013 were available for this review, and there was no evidence of a difference between the groups ( Analysis 1.13 ).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nCD000425-CMP-001-13.jpg

Comparison 1 SLT versus no SLT, Outcome 13 Economic outcomes.

9. Follow‐up data (comparison 1: SLT versus no SLT)

Eight trials comparing SLT versus no SLT also gathered data at a follow‐up point after the formal intervention period. Of these trials, B.A.Bar 2011ii and Szaflarski 2014 did not report data suitable for inclusion in the review, while data from the remaining six trials are presented below in relation to: functional communication, receptive language, expressive language, severity of impairment, number of dropouts, and adherence to allocated intervention ( CACTUS 2013 ; Laska 2011 , Mattioli 2014 ; Smania 2006 ; Yao 2005i ; Yao 2005ii ).

Both Laska 2011 and Mattioli 2014 measured functional communication at six months using the ANELT and the AAT and compared performance of people who received SLT and those that did not. There was no evidence of a difference between the groups ( Analysis 2.1 ).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nCD000425-CMP-002-01.jpg

Comparison 2 SLT versus no SLT (follow‐up data), Outcome 1 Functional communication.

Participants' auditory comprehension six months following intervention was compared using the AAT subtest ( Mattioli 2014 ), the Token Test ( Mattioli 2014 ), and the NGA ( Laska 2011 ). To avoid double‐counting the Mattioli 2014 trial data, we presented the pooled data using the AAT auditory comprehension subtest data ( Analysis 2.2 ). There was no evidence of a difference between the groups. We obtained similar findings in the meta‐analysis using the Token Test (P = 0.45; 1.24 CI 95% −1.94 to 4.41).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nCD000425-CMP-002-02.jpg

Comparison 2 SLT versus no SLT (follow‐up data), Outcome 2 Receptive language: auditory comprehension.

Mattioli 2014 also assessed reading in participants receiving SLT versus no SLT using the AAT subtest; there was no evidence of a different between the groups ( Analysis 2.3 ).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nCD000425-CMP-002-03.jpg

Comparison 2 SLT versus no SLT (follow‐up data), Outcome 3 Receptive language: reading comprehension.

4. Expressive language

CACTUS 2013 evaluated the naming abilities of participants who had received SLT versus those that had not at three months follow‐up using items from the Object and Action Naming Battery, while at six months, Laska 2011 used the NGA, and Mattioli 2014 the AAT naming subtest ( Analysis 2.4 ).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nCD000425-CMP-002-04.jpg

Comparison 2 SLT versus no SLT (follow‐up data), Outcome 4 Expressive language: naming.

Similarly, Mattioli 2014 used the AAT written subtest to evaluate writing abilities ( Analysis 2.5 ).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nCD000425-CMP-002-05.jpg

Comparison 2 SLT versus no SLT (follow‐up data), Outcome 5 Expressive language: written.

Mattioli 2014 and Laska 2011 also assessed repetition abilities using the AAT repetition subtest and the NGA, respectively, at six months after intervention ( Analysis 2.6 ). There was no evidence of a difference between the groups on any of these measures of expressive language ability at three or six months' follow‐up.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nCD000425-CMP-002-06.jpg

Comparison 2 SLT versus no SLT (follow‐up data), Outcome 6 Expressive language: repetition.

5. Severity of impairment

At six months follow‐up, Laska 2011 compared the severity of participants' aphasia using the NGA, and Yao 2005i and Yao 2005ii used the CRRCAE Aphasia Quotient. On pooling the data, there was no evidence of a difference between the groups ( Analysis 2.7 ).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nCD000425-CMP-002-07.jpg

Comparison 2 SLT versus no SLT (follow‐up data), Outcome 7 Severity of impairment: Aphasia Battery Score.

6. Economic outcomes

The CACTUS 2013 trial captured EQ‐5D and Patient VAS data at three‐month follow‐up after the end of treatment and found no evidence of a difference between the groups ( Analysis 2.8 ).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nCD000425-CMP-002-08.jpg

Comparison 2 SLT versus no SLT (follow‐up data), Outcome 8 Economic outcomes.

7. Number of dropouts

Six trials also reported attrition from the follow‐up data collection point ( CACTUS 2013 ; Laska 2011 , Smania 2006 , Mattioli 2014 ; Wertz 1986i , Wertz 1986ii ). Of 181 participants receiving SLT, 21 were reported as lost to follow‐up, while 25 of the 136 people who did not receive SLT were not followed up. There was no evidence of a difference between the groups ( Analysis 2.9 ).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nCD000425-CMP-002-09.jpg

Comparison 2 SLT versus no SLT (follow‐up data), Outcome 9 Number of dropouts (any reason).

Comparison 2: SLT versus social support and stimulation

Nine trials compared the provision of SLT to the provision of informal social support and stimulation in a total of 447 participants ( ACTNoW 2011 ; David 1982 ; Elman 1999 ; Lincoln 1982iii ; Rochon 2005 ; Shewan 1984ii ; Shewan 1984iii , Woolf 2015ii ; Woolf 2015iii ). Descriptions of participant groups within trials were variable, so it is difficult to give a precise overview of the participants included in this comparison. Most trials described the participants' age range, which spanned from 18 to 97 years ( ACTNoW 2011 ; Elman 1999 ; Lincoln 1982iii ; Rochon 2005 ; Shewan 1984ii ; Shewan 1984iii ). David 1982 reported that participants in the SLT and social support and stimulation groups had a mean age of 70 (SD 8.7) years and 65 (SD 10.6) years, respectively, indicating a significant difference between the groups (P = 0.003). Details can be found in Table 6 . All nine trials detailed the length of time since aphasia onset. ACTNoW 2011 randomised participants with the most acute aphasia (interquartile range (IQR) 9 to 16 days duration). Similarly, Shewan 1984ii and Shewan 1984iii recruited people at two to four weeks post onset of aphasia. In contrast, Lincoln 1982iii recruited participants at 1 to 36 months' poststroke, while Woolf 2015ii and Woolf 2015iii recruited at a mean of 31.8 (14.11) and 35.2 (33.16) months post onset, respectively. Other trials recruited participants much later after stroke, ranging from 2 to 9 years in Rochon 2005 to 7 months to 28 years in Elman 1999 . All nine trials reported on severity of aphasia to varying degrees of detail. Lincoln 1982iii recruited participants with moderate degrees of aphasia. Six trials described the recruitment of participants with a range of mild to severe aphasia ( ACTNoW 2011 ; David 1982 ; Elman 1999 ; Rochon 2005 ; Shewan 1984ii ; Shewan 1984iii ), and two trials reported scores on a naming measure ( Woolf 2015ii ; Woolf 2015iii ) ( Table 6 ).

There were a number of approaches to the provision of SLT interventions in the trials: five provided conventional SLT ( ACTNoW 2011 ; David 1982 ; Lincoln 1982iii ; Shewan 1984iii ; Woolf 2015iii ), and the others provided group SLT ( Elman 1999 ), sentence‐mapping SLT ( Rochon 2005 ), language‐orientated SLT ( Shewan 1984ii ), or telerehabilitation SLT ( Woolf 2015ii ). These SLT interventions were then compared with the provision of social support and stimulation, which also took a variety of formats. Unstructured support and communicative stimulation were provided by nurses ( Shewan 1984ii ; Shewan 1984iii ), a trained research assistant ( Rochon 2005 ), a clinical psychologist ( Lincoln 1982iii ), speech and language therapy students ( Woolf 2015ii ; Woolf 2015iii ), paid visitors ( ACTNoW 2011 ; David 1982 ), or through attendance at an externally organised support group or class, for example dance classes or church groups ( Elman 1999 ). Most were face‐to‐face social support. Two used an Internet‐supported videoconferencing tool. Some volunteers had been given detailed information about their own participant's particular presentation of aphasia ( David 1982 ), but they were not given any training in SLT techniques ( ACTNoW 2011 ; David 1982 ; Lincoln 1982iii ; Shewan 1984ii ; Shewan 1984iii ). Two trials had a specific, non‐therapeutic intervention protocol for the people providing the social support and stimulation intervention, which detailed the role and suitable non‐communication therapy activities ( ACTNoW 2011 ; Lincoln 1982iii ). Other providers of social support received a handbook and training in supported conversation ( Woolf 2015ii ; Woolf 2015iii ). Six trials described intervention fidelity monitoring ( ACTNoW 2011 ; Shewan 1984ii ; Shewan 1984iii ; David 1982 ; Woolf 2015ii ; Woolf 2015iii ), together with monitoring of a percentage of the overall sessions in three of these ( David 1982 ; Woolf 2015ii ; Woolf 2015iii ). The participants in these groups received social support for up to one hour ( ACTNoW 2011 ; Rochon 2005 ), two hours ( David 1982 ; Lincoln 1982iii ; Woolf 2015ii ; Woolf 2015iii ), or three hours ( Elman 1999 ; Shewan 1984ii ; Shewan 1984iii ), each week over a period of up to 1 month ( Lincoln 1982iii ; Woolf 2015ii ; Woolf 2015iii ), 2.5 months ( Rochon 2005 ), 4 months ( ACTNoW 2011 ; Elman 1999 ), 5 months ( David 1982 ), or one year ( Shewan 1984ii ; Shewan 1984iii ). Statistical data for communication outcomes were available for six of the included trials ( ACTNoW 2011 ; David 1982 ; Lincoln 1982iii ; Rochon 2005 ; Woolf 2015ii ; Woolf 2015iii ). Suitable data allowing inclusion within the meta‐analyses were unavailable for the remaining three trials ( Elman 1999 ; Shewan 1984ii ; Shewan 1984iii ). We report the comparisons made (with meta‐analysis where possible) below as they relate to measures of: functional communication, receptive language, expressive language, severity of impairment, psychosocial impact, number of dropouts, adherence to allocated intervention, and economic outcomes.

Five trials measured functional communication using the FCP, the CADL, the CETI, Therapy Outcome Measures (TOMs), and discourse analysis approaches ( ACTNoW 2011 ; David 1982 ; Elman 1999 ; Woolf 2015ii ; Woolf 2015iii ).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nCD000425-CMP-003-01.jpg

Comparison 3 SLT versus social support and stimulation, Outcome 1 Functional communication.

Communication Abilities of Daily Living (CADL) and the Communicative Effectiveness Index (CETI)

Elman 1999 used the CADL, the CETI and measures of connected speech to compare the functional communication skills of participants that received conventional SLT and those that attended social groups and activities instead. The trial did not provide suitable summary data, so we could not include the results in the meta‐analysis.

Therapy Outcome Measures (TOMs)

ACTNoW 2011 used the TOMs to compare blinded ratings of video‐recorded samples of functional communication skills in participants that had received conventional SLT and those that had received social support and stimulation from a volunteer.

Discourse analyses approaches

Two trials used discourse analysis approaches to examine the use of substantive turns, content words per turn and the number of nouns per turn used by participants in a conversational interaction ( Woolf 2015ii ; Woolf 2015iii ). The groups had received either SLT or an Internet‐based conference conversational intervention.

The measure of content words per turn was pooled with the other data in Analysis 3.1 , and there was no evidence of a significant difference between the groups that had received SLT and those that had received informal social support. Pooling using the other discourse measures made no difference to this finding.

Four of the nine trials that compared participants that received SLT or a social support and stimulation intervention did so by comparing the groups' receptive language skills ( Lincoln 1982iii ; Rochon 2005 ; Shewan 1984ii ; Shewan 1984iii ). Measures used included the Philadelphia Comprehension Battery (PCB), the Auditory Comprehension Test for Sentences (ACTS), the Token Test and the PICA gestural subtest.

Philadelphia Comprehension Battery (PCB)

Rochon 2005 measured participants' receptive language skills on the PCB, which includes subtests for sentence comprehension and picture comprehension. There was no evidence of a difference between the receptive language skills of the participants that received sentence‐mapping SLT and those that received unstructured social support and stimulation ( Analysis 3.2 ).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nCD000425-CMP-003-02.jpg

Comparison 3 SLT versus social support and stimulation, Outcome 2 Receptive language: auditory comprehension.

Auditory Comprehension Test for Sentences (ACTS)

Two additional trials measured receptive language skills by measuring auditory comprehension of sentences in participants that received either language‐oriented therapy or conventional SLT versus an intervention that provided unstructured social support ( Shewan 1984ii ; Shewan 1984iii ). Both trials used the ACTS to make this comparison, but the manner in which they reported data prevented inclusion within the meta‐analysis.

Lincoln 1982iii measured participants' receptive language skills using the Token Test. There was no evidence of a difference between the groups ( Analysis 3.2 ).

Receptive language: other comprehension

Lincoln 1982iii assessed participants' auditory and written comprehension skills using the PICA gestural subtest; those that had access to social support and stimulation performed significantly better on these measures than those that had access to SLT (P = 0.04, MD −0.87, 95% CI −1.70 to −0.04) ( Analysis 3.3 ).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nCD000425-CMP-003-03.jpg

Comparison 3 SLT versus social support and stimulation, Outcome 3 Receptive language: other.

Five of the nine trials that compared participants that received SLT or a social support and stimulation intervention did so by comparing the groups' expressive language skills ( Elman 1999 ; Lincoln 1982iii ; Rochon 2005 ; Woolf 2015ii ; Woolf 2015iii ). Measures used included the Object Naming Test (ONT), Caplan and Hanna Sentence Production Test (CHSPT), the Picture Description with Structured Modeling (PDSM), the PICA and the Spoken Picture Naming Test.

Expressive language: single words

Lincoln 1982iii measured participants' naming skills on the ONT, while Woolf 2015ii and Woolf 2015iii used the Spoken Picture Naming test. On pooling the data, there was no evidence of a difference between the groups that received social support and stimulation and those that had received SLT, but there was significant heterogeneity (P = 0.0002; I 2 = 84%) ( Analysis 3.4 ).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nCD000425-CMP-003-04.jpg

Comparison 3 SLT versus social support and stimulation, Outcome 4 Expressive language:naming.

Expressive language: sentences

Rochon 2005 compared the participants who received s entence‐mapping SLT and a group receiving unstructured social support and stimulation. Comparison of the two groups showed no evidence of a difference between the groups' performance on the CHSPT scores. Those that had received SLT did perform significantly better on treated items from the test (P = 0.01, MD 3.00, 95% CI 0.63 to 5.37) than the participants who received social support, but there was no evidence of a difference between the groups on the untreated items ( Analysis 3.5 ).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nCD000425-CMP-003-05.jpg

Comparison 3 SLT versus social support and stimulation, Outcome 5 Expressive language: sentences.

Expressive language: picture description

Two trials elicited samples of participants' connected speech using picture description tasks ( Lincoln 1982iii ; Rochon 2005 ). There was no evidence of a difference between the two groups. Rochon 2005 also reported the two groups' scores on the treated and untreated items, but there was no evidence of a between‐group difference on the treated or untreated items ( Analysis 3.6 ).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nCD000425-CMP-003-06.jpg

Comparison 3 SLT versus social support and stimulation, Outcome 6 Expressive language: picture description.

Lincoln 1982iii and Elman 1999 compared the groups' performances on the PICA verbal subtest. Suitable statistical data were unavailable from Elman 1999 , so we could not include the results in the meta‐analysis. Participants who had received social support and stimulation scored significantly better than those who received SLT (P = 0.0007, MD −1.56, 95% CI −2.46 to −0.66) ( Analysis 3.7 ).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nCD000425-CMP-003-07.jpg

Comparison 3 SLT versus social support and stimulation, Outcome 7 Expressive language: overall spoken.

Similarly, Lincoln 1982iii compared the groups' performances on the PICA graphic subtests and found participants that received social support performed significantly better than those that had received SLT (P = 0.01, MD −1.39, 95% CI −2.49 to −0.29) ( Analysis 3.8 ).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nCD000425-CMP-003-08.jpg

Comparison 3 SLT versus social support and stimulation, Outcome 8 Expressive language: written.

Expressive language: word fluency

Participants that received social support performed significantly better on measures of word fluency than those that had received SLT ( Lincoln 1982iii ; Analysis 3.9 )

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nCD000425-CMP-003-09.jpg

Comparison 3 SLT versus social support and stimulation, Outcome 9 Expressive language: fluency.

Elman 1999 , Lincoln 1982iii , Shewan 1984ii and Shewan 1984iii compared groups that had access to SLT and those that received social support and stimulation by measuring participants' aphasia severity. The assessments used included the PICA and the Western Aphasia Battery‐Aphasia Quotient (WABAQ).

Two trials used the Shortened PICA to compare participants who had received group SLT and those who had attended other social activities or groups that provided social support and stimulation ( Elman 1999 ; Lincoln 1982iii ). Suitable statistical data were unavailable from Elman 1999 , so we could not include them in the meta‐analysis. Lincoln 1982iii found that participants provided with social support and stimulation were less impaired as a result of aphasia (as measured on the PICA) than those who received SLT (P = 0.005, MD −1.13, 95% CI −1.91 to −0.35). Suitable summary data were not available from Elman 1999 to allow inclusion within the meta‐analysis ( Analysis 3.10 ).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nCD000425-CMP-003-10.jpg

Comparison 3 SLT versus social support and stimulation, Outcome 10 Severity of impairment: Aphasia Battery Score.

Two additional trials assessed the severity of participants' aphasia using the WAB, comparing participants who received language‐oriented SLT or conventional SLT versus psychological support and unstructured communication provided by trained nurses ( Shewan 1984ii ; Shewan 1984iii ). Suitable summary data were unavailable, so we could not include them in the meta‐analysis.

5. Psychosocial impact

ACTNoW 2011 and Elman 1999 evaluated psychosocial impact in participants who had received SLT versus social support and stimulation using the ABS and the Communication Outcomes After STroke (COAST) scale from both the patients' and caregivers' perspectives.

Affect Balance Scale

Elman 1999 compared participants that had received SLT and those that had received social support using the ABS, but appropriate summary values were unavailable, so we could not include them in the meta‐analysis.

Participants and caregivers completed separate versions of the COAST scale to indicate the impact of the participant's aphasia on their functional communication and quality of life ( ACTNoW 2011 ). Measures were then used to compare the participants that had received SLT and those that had received social support. There was no evidence of a difference between the groups on this measure as reported by the participants or by the caregivers ( Analysis 3.11 ).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nCD000425-CMP-003-11.jpg

Comparison 3 SLT versus social support and stimulation, Outcome 11 Psychosocial impact.

Six of the nine trials in this section reported dropouts from the original randomised participants ( ACTNoW 2011 ; David 1982 ; Elman 1999 ; Lincoln 1982iii ; Shewan 1984ii ; Shewan 1984iii ). The main Lincoln 1982 trial (from which the randomised comparison Lincoln 1982iii has been extracted) excluded 13 participants for failing to complete the full treatment intervention. It is unclear which intervention arms these participants were randomised to, so we could not include these dropouts in meta‐analysis. The remaining trials lost a total of 40 participants from the groups allocated to SLT while 65 were lost to the social support and stimulation interventions. Fewer participants allocated to SLT were lost to the trial than those that were allocated to social support and stimulation (P = 0.005, OR 0.51 95% CI 0.32 to 0.81) ( Analysis 3.12 ).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nCD000425-CMP-003-12.jpg

Comparison 3 SLT versus social support and stimulation, Outcome 12 Number of dropouts for any reason.

Five trials with dropouts also described the reasons for the dropouts to allow identification of those who had voluntarily withdrawn from the allocated intervention. A total of 11 participants in the SLT groups and 45 participants in the social support and stimulation intervention groups did not adhere to the allocated intervention ( ACTNoW 2011 ; David 1982 ; Elman 1999 ; Shewan 1984ii ; Shewan 1984iii ) (P < 0.00001, OR 0.18, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.37; Analysis 3.13 ). In addition, David 1982 also described the withdrawal of four more participants from the social support group because of 'volunteer problems' (details can be found in Table 7 ).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nCD000425-CMP-003-13.jpg

Comparison 3 SLT versus social support and stimulation, Outcome 13 Adherence to allocated intervention.

Only one of the nine trials measured economic outcomes ( ACTNoW 2011 ). The cost favoured the provision of SLT (P < 0.00001, MD −3035.00, 95% CI −4342.44 to −1727.56), while the utility data favoured the social support intervention (P = 0.02, MD 0.06, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.11; Analysis 3.14 ).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nCD000425-CMP-003-14.jpg

Comparison 3 SLT versus social support and stimulation, Outcome 14 Economic outcomes.

9. Follow‐up data

Three trials comparing SLT versus social support and stimulation also gathered follow‐up data: at six weeks in Woolf 2015ii and Woolf 2015iii ) and at three and six months in David 1982 . Of these trials, we present data relating to functional communication and expressive language below.

David 1982 used the FCP to compare a group who received conventional SLT with a group that received communication treatment by volunteers. There was no evidence of a difference between the groups at three and six months' follow‐up. Similarly, Woolf 2015ii and Woolf 2015iii measured functional communication using discourse measures and found no evidence of a difference between the groups six weeks after the intervention based on measures of substantive turns, content words, or nouns per turn during an unstructured conversation. On pooling FCP data at three months from David 1982 with data on content words per turn in Woolf 2015ii and Woolf 2015iii , there was no evidence of a difference between the groups. This did not change when we substituted other discourse data described above in the analysis ( Woolf 2015ii ; Woolf 2015iii ; see Analysis 5.1 ).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nCD000425-CMP-005-01.jpg

Comparison 5 SLT versus social support and stimulation (follow‐up), Outcome 1 Functional communication.

2. Expressive language

Six weeks after the intervention, two trials measured participants' naming abilities using the Spoken Picture Naming Test ( Woolf 2015ii ; Woolf 2015iii ). Pooling this data, the individuals that received SLT were able to name more words than those that received social support (P = 0.03; SMD 2.25, 95% CI 0.18 to 4.32; Analysis 5.2 ).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nCD000425-CMP-005-02.jpg

Comparison 5 SLT versus social support and stimulation (follow‐up), Outcome 2 Expressive language: single words (6 week follow‐up).

Comparisons: SLT A versus SLT B

A total of 1242 participants were included in 38 randomised comparisons of one SLT intervention (SLT A) with another SLT intervention (SLT B) ( B.A.Bar 2011ii ; Bakheit 2007 ; Crerar 1996 ; Crosson 2014 ; Denes 1996 ; Di Carlo 1980 ; Drummond 1981 ; FUATAC ; Hinckley 2001 ; Leal 1993 ; Lincoln 1982i ; Lincoln 1982ii ; Lincoln 1984b ; Meikle 1979 ; Meinzer 2007 ; MIT 2014i ; MIT 2014ii ; NARNIA 2013 ; ORLA 2006 ; ORLA 2010 ; Prins 1989 ; Pulvermuller 2001 ; RATS ; RATS‐2 ; SEMaFORE ; Sickert 2014 ; Shewan 1984i ; Smith 1981iii ; SP‐I‐RiT ; Varley 2016ii ; Van Steenbrugge 1981 ; VERSE I ; VERSE II ; Yao 2005iii ; Wertz 1981 ; Wertz 1986iii ; Wilssens 2015 ; Woolf 2015i ). As within other sections of this review, descriptions of the participants' age and other characteristics across trials varied ( Table 6 ).

Participants' age ranges, spanning 17 to 92 years, were available for 15 trials, while 22 trials reported mean ages ( B.A.Bar 2011ii ; Crosson 2014 ; Denes 1996 ; Drummond 1981 ; Hinckley 2001 ; Leal 1993 ; MIT 2014i ; MIT 2014ii ; NARNIA 2013 ; RATS ; RATS‐2 ; SEMaFORE ; Smith 1981iii ; Sickert 2014 ; SP‐I‐RiT ; Varley 2016i ; Varley 2016ii ; VERSE I ; VERSE II ; Wertz 1986iii ; Wilssens 2015 ; Woolf 2015i ), and one reported the number of participants within age bands ( Yao 2005iii ) ( Table 6 ).

All but four trials reported the length of time since their participants had experienced the onset of aphasia ( FUATAC ; SEMaFORE ; Smith 1981iii ; Yao 2005iii ). Mean time since onset varied from less than a week after stroke ( VERSE I ; VERSE II ), to within the first month ( Bakheit 2007 ; Leal 1993 ; Shewan 1984i ; Wertz 1981 ), two months ( Sickert 2014 ; SP‐I‐RiT ), three months ( MIT 2014i ; MIT 2014ii ), or even up to one year or more after stroke ( B.A.Bar 2011ii ; Crosson 2014 ; Drummond 1981 ; Hinckley 2001 ; Meinzer 2007 ; NARNIA 2013 ; ORLA 2006 ; ORLA 2010 ; Pulvermuller 2001 ; Prins 1989 ; Van Steenbrugge 1981 ; Varley 2016i ; Varley 2016ii ; Wilssens 2015 ; Woolf 2015i ) ( Table 6 ). Similarly, almost all trials reported the severity of aphasia, with only four failing to report how severe participants' aphasia was ( Drummond 1981 ; FUATAC ; SEMaFORE ; Yao 2005iii ). In most cases, trials reported the range of participants' aphasia severity using a suitable assessment tool, but in some cases this aspect was reported in more general terms ( Table 6 ). Some trials focused specifically on participants with moderate ( Wilssens 2015 ), severe ( Denes 1996 ; Di Carlo 1980 ; Lincoln 1984b ), or moderate to severe presentations of aphasia ( B.A.Bar 2011ii ; Lincoln 1982i ; Leal 1993 ).

Trials in this section compared one SLT approach to an alternative approach to SLT intervention, where the interventions differed in relation to the therapy regimen (intensity, dose, duration), delivery model (one‐to‐one or group therapy, volunteer or computer facilitated therapy), or theoretical underpinnings of the therapy delivered.

High‐intensity versus low‐intensity SLT

As prespecified, we looked at the data from eight trials which compared a high‐intensity SLT intervention with a low‐intensity SLT intervention ( Bakheit 2007 ; Denes 1996 ; FUATAC ; ORLA 2006 ; Pulvermuller 2001 ; Smith 1981iii ; SP‐I‐RiT ; VERSE I ). For participants in the high‐intensity groups, the number of hours weekly ranged from 4 hours ( Smith 1981iii ), 5 hours ( Bakheit 2007 ; Denes 1996 ), 7.5 hours ( VERSE I ), 10 hours ( ORLA 2006 ; Pulvermuller 2001 ; SP‐I‐RiT ), or 15 hours ( FUATAC ). In contrast the low‐intensity SLT groups received 1.5 hours ( Smith 1981iii ; VERSE I ), 2 hours ( Bakheit 2007 ; SP‐I‐RiT ), 3 hours ( Denes 1996 ), 4 hours ( FUATAC ; ORLA 2006 ), or 5 hours ( Pulvermuller 2001 ) weekly. The participants' time since stroke ranged from recruitment at an average of three days after stroke ( VERSE I ), approximately a month ( Bakheit 2007 ), two months ( Denes 1996 , SP‐I‐RiT ), up to three months ( FUATAC , unreported but estimated in Smith 1981iii ), and two years ( Pulvermuller 2001 low intensity group), three to four years ( ORLA 2006 ), and eight years ( Pulvermuller 2001 high‐intensity SLT group).

Statistical data for communication outcomes were only available for six trials ( Bakheit 2007 ; Denes 1996 ; ORLA 2006 ; Pulvermuller 2001 ; SP‐I‐RiT ; VERSE I ), and we made comparisons by measuring participants' functional communication, receptive language, expressive language, severity of impairment, psychosocial impact, number of dropouts, and adherence to allocated intervention. The trials did not report on economic outcome measures.

VERSE I and SP‐I‐RiT compared high versus low intensity interventions (both within a couple of months after stroke onset), measuring participants' functional communication using the FCP. VERSE I also used Discourse Analysis (DA) scores (informativeness and efficiency ( Nicholas 1995 )). On pooling the FCP data, the groups that received high‐intensity SLT had better functional communication than those that received low intensity SLT (P = 0.003; MD 11.75 95% CI 4.09 to 19.40; Analysis 4.1 ). When the VERSE I DA data were pooled with the SP‐I‐RiT FCP data, there was a similar finding (P = 0.002, SMD 0.69 95% CI 0.25 to 1.13).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nCD000425-CMP-004-01.jpg

Comparison 4 High‐ versus low‐intensity SLT, Outcome 1 Functional communication.

Measures of participants' receptive language skills were available for Denes 1996 , SP‐I‐RiT and Pulvermuller 2001 . These trials measured participants' auditory comprehension using the Token Test, the Aachen Aphasia Test (AAT) and Lisbon Aphasia Assessment Batter comprehension subtests. On pooling the final value scores reported by Pulvermuller 2001 and SP‐I‐RiT from the Token Test, we observed significant heterogeneity (P = 0.03; I 2 = 79%) that could represent substantial heterogeneity ( Higgins 2011 ). However, there was no indication of a significant difference between comprehension skills in participants that had received high‐intensity SLT versus those that had received low‐intensity SLT ( Analysis 4.2 ). Denes 1996 only reported change‐from‐baseline scores, and thus they are not presented here.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nCD000425-CMP-004-02.jpg

Comparison 4 High‐ versus low‐intensity SLT, Outcome 2 Receptive language: auditory comprehension.

SP‐I‐RiT measured participants' reading abilities using the Portuguese version of the AAT and found no evidence of a difference between participants that received high‐intensity SLT and those that received low‐intensity SLT ( Analysis 4.3 ).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nCD000425-CMP-004-03.jpg

Comparison 4 High‐ versus low‐intensity SLT, Outcome 3 Receptive language: reading comprehension.

Three trials compared the expressive language skills of participants that received a high‐intensity SLT with those that received a low‐intensity SLT intervention on naming, repetition, and writing tests ( Denes 1996 ; Pulvermuller 2001 ; SP‐I‐RiT ). Denes 1996 measured expressive language skills using the AAT nNaming, repetition and written subtests, but only the groups' change‐from‐baseline scores were available, so we do not present them here.

Pulvermuller 2001 and SP‐I‐RiT measured participants' naming skills using the AAT naming subtest and the Lisbon Aphasia Assessment Battery. There was no indication of a difference between the groups ( Analysis 4.4 ).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nCD000425-CMP-004-04.jpg

Comparison 4 High‐ versus low‐intensity SLT, Outcome 4 Expressive language: naming.

Trialists compared the writing skills of participants that had received high‐ and low‐intensity SLT using the AAT ( Denes 1996 ; SP‐I‐RiT ). Only change‐from‐baseline data were available from Denes 1996 , so we do not present them here ( Analysis 4.5 ).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nCD000425-CMP-004-05.jpg

Comparison 4 High‐ versus low‐intensity SLT, Outcome 5 Expressive language: written.

On pooling data from the repetition subtests of the AAT and the Lisbon Aphasia Assessment Battery ( Pulvermuller 2001 ; SP‐I‐RiT ), there was no evidence of a difference between the groups ( Analysis 4.6 ).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nCD000425-CMP-004-06.jpg

Comparison 4 High‐ versus low‐intensity SLT, Outcome 6 Expressive language: repetition.

SP‐I‐RiT also captured the participants' fluency and found no evidence of a difference between the groups ( Analysis 4.7 ).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nCD000425-CMP-004-07.jpg

Comparison 4 High‐ versus low‐intensity SLT, Outcome 7 Expressive language: fluency.

Seven trials compared participants' overall level of aphasia severity following interventions that varied in intensity by using the WAB ( Bakheit 2007 ; ORLA 2006 ; VERSE I ), the AAT ( Pulvermuller 2001 ), the BDAE ( SP‐I‐RiT ), the Lisbon Aphasia Assessment Battery ( SP‐I‐RiT ), and the MTDDA ( Smith 1981iii ). Suitable statistical data allowing inclusion in the meta‐analysis were unavailable from Smith 1981iii , and only change‐from‐baseline scores were available for the AAT, preventing inclusion in the meta‐analysis. On pooling the available final scores summary data (using the BDAE data from the SP‐I‐RiT trial), the groups that received high‐intensity SLT performed significantly better on measures of aphasia severity than those that received a low‐intensity SLT intervention (P = 0.02, SMD 0.38, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.69; Analysis 4.8 ). We did observe some non‐significant heterogeneity (P = 0.37; I 2 = 7%). We obtained a similar result when pooling the data for the Lisbon Aphasia Assessment Battery ( SP‐I‐RiT ) (P = 0.02; SMD 0.40 95% CI 0.07 to 0.74).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nCD000425-CMP-004-08.jpg

Comparison 4 High‐ versus low‐intensity SLT, Outcome 8 Severity of impairment: Aphasia Battery Score.

Following Cochrane editorial review comments, we conducted a post hoc subgroup analysis that considered the trials' recruitment time point since aphasia onset. Data from trials delivering interventions to participants up to three months poststroke (a clinically relevant timeframe) continued to demonstrate benefit from intensive intervention (N = 157; P = 0.03; SMD 0.47 95% CI 0.05 to 0.88) in the presence of some non‐significant heterogeneity (P = 0.21; I 2 = 36%; Bakheit 2007 ; SP‐I‐RiT ; VERSE I ). Conversely, when we conducted the post hoc analyses on data from the subgroup of trials recruiting participants several years after stroke ( ORLA 2006 ; Pulvermuller 2001 ), there was no longer evidence of a difference between the small numbers of participants that received high‐intensity SLT (N = 16) versus low‐intensity SLT (N = 14). We will revisit this issue within the Discussion.

Smith 1981iii used the GHQ while SP‐I‐RiT used the Stroke Aphasia Depression Questionnaire to compare groups receiving high‐intensity and low‐intensity SLT. Appropriate summary data from Smith 1981iii were unavailable. Presenting data from SP‐I‐RiT , there was no evidence of a difference between the participants' experience of depression ( Analysis 4.9 ).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nCD000425-CMP-004-09.jpg

Comparison 4 High‐ versus low‐intensity SLT, Outcome 9 Mood.

Data on participants that dropped out of trials included in this comparison were available for Bakheit 2007 , Denes 1996 , ORLA 2006 , Pulvermuller 2001 , SP‐I‐RiT and VERSE I and were partially available for Smith 1981iii . Smith 1981iii excluded five additional participants from the final analysis (three were found not to have aphasia and two died), but their group allocation was unclear. These five individuals were not included in this meta‐analysis. It was unclear whether any were lost in FUATAC . No participants appear to have been lost from the treatment or follow‐up time points in the Denes 1996 , ORLA 2006 , or Pulvermuller 2001 studies. Both ORLA 2006 and Pulvermuller 2001 recruited between an average of two and eight years after stroke.

Across the trials, significantly more participants (N = 35) were lost to the high‐intensity SLT intervention groups compared with those lost to low‐intensity SLT interventions (N = 17) (P = 0.01, OR 2.35, 95% CI 1.20 to 4.60) ( Analysis 4.10 ).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nCD000425-CMP-004-10.jpg

Comparison 4 High‐ versus low‐intensity SLT, Outcome 10 Number of dropouts for any reason.

Bakheit 2007 (in part), SP‐I‐RiT , and VERSE I reported the reasons for loss of participants from within the study. Of these, seven voluntarily withdrew from the high‐intensity SLT group during the treatment phase, while one withdrew from the low‐intensity group. There was no significant difference between the groups on this measure.

8. Follow‐up data (high‐intensity versus low‐intensity SLT)

Three trials comparing participants who received high‐intensity SLT versus low intensity SLT included a follow‐up data collection point after the intervention period in relation to: functional communication, receptive language, expressive language, severity of impairment, and number of dropouts ( Bakheit 2007 ; SP‐I‐RiT ; VERSE I ).

Functional communication

We collected follow‐up data on functional communication as measured by the FCP in SP‐I‐RiT and VERSE I by discourse analysis in VERSE I at 40 weeks ( SP‐I‐RiT ), six months ( VERSE I ), and 12 months postintervention ( SP‐I‐RiT ) ( Analysis 6.1 ). On pooling the FCP data, participants who had received high‐intensity SLT continued to perform significantly better on measures of functional communication than those who had received low‐intensity SLT (P = 0.02; SMD 0.53; 95% CI 0.07 to 0.99). Other measures did not demonstrate a significant difference between the groups.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nCD000425-CMP-006-01.jpg

Comparison 6 High‐ versus low‐intensity SLT (follow‐up), Outcome 1 Functional communication.

Receptive language

The SP‐I‐RiT trial captured auditory comprehension (LAAB and the Token Test) and reading comprehension (AAT subtest) at 40 weeks and 12 months postintervention. There was evidence of significantly better performance on measures of auditory comprehension by participants that had received the high‐intensity SLT compared with those that had received the low‐intensity SLT. These and other data are presented in Analysis 6.2 .

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nCD000425-CMP-006-02.jpg

Comparison 6 High‐ versus low‐intensity SLT (follow‐up), Outcome 2 Receptive language.

Expressive language

Similarly, data on participants' expressive language skills were collected in the SP‐I‐RiT trial relating to their naming, writing to dictation, repetition, and fluency at 40 weeks and 12 months. There was evidence of a difference between participants' performance ( Analysis 6.3 ).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nCD000425-CMP-006-03.jpg

Comparison 6 High‐ versus low‐intensity SLT (follow‐up), Outcome 3 Expressive language.

Severity of impairment

Three trials followed up participants at three months ( Bakheit 2007 ), six months ( VERSE I ), and 40 weeks and 12 months ( SP‐I‐RiT ) to compare participants who had received high‐intensity SLT versus low‐intensity SLT on measures of aphasia severity including the WABAQ ( Bakheit 2007 ; VERSE I ), the BDAE ( SP‐I‐RiT ), and the LAAB–AQ ( SP‐I‐RiT ). On pooling the data (using the BDAE SP‐I‐RiT data only), there was no evidence of a difference between the groups (P = 0.07; SMD 0.37 95% CI −0.03 to 0.77) ( Analysis 6.4 ).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nCD000425-CMP-006-04.jpg

Comparison 6 High‐ versus low‐intensity SLT (follow‐up), Outcome 4 Severity of impairment: Aphasia Battery Score.

SP‐I‐RiT used the Stroke Aphasia Depression Questionnaire to compare those that received high‐ and low‐intensity SLT. There was no evidence of a difference between the groups at 40 weeks or 12 months follow‐up ( Analysis 6.5 ).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nCD000425-CMP-006-05.jpg

Comparison 6 High‐ versus low‐intensity SLT (follow‐up), Outcome 5 Mood.

Number of dropouts

Three trials reported the number of participants lost to follow‐up ( Bakheit 2007 ; Smith 1981iii ; SP‐I‐RiT ; VERSE I ) from the high‐intensity groups (N = 15) and the low‐intensity groups (N = 10). There was no evidence of a difference between the groups ( Analysis 6.6 )

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nCD000425-CMP-006-06.jpg

Comparison 6 High‐ versus low‐intensity SLT (follow‐up), Outcome 6 Number of dropouts for any reason.

High versus low dose SLT

As planned, we considered six trials that compared a high dose with a low dose SLT intervention as measured in hours of therapy provision. The number of therapy hours in the high dose SLT intervention varied from a total of 27 hours ( VERSE I ), 60 hours ( Bakheit 2007 ; ORLA 2006 ), 90 hours ( FUATAC ), 97 to 129 hours ( Denes 1996 ), and up to 208 hours ( ORLA 2006 ). Participants receiving a low dose SLT intervention received 5 hours ( VERSE I ), 23 hours ( FUATAC ; Smith 1981iii ), 24 hours ( Bakheit 2007 ; ORLA 2006 ), 69 hours ( Smith 1981iii ), or 78 hours ( Denes 1996 ). These high and low dose SLT groups were compared on measures of functional communication, receptive language, expressive language, severity of impairment, number of dropouts, and adherence to allocated intervention.

VERSE I measured participants' functional communication using the FCP and Discourse Analysis (DA) scores (informativeness and efficiency; Nicholas 1995 ). The participants that had received a high dose of SLT (up to 27 hours) had significantly better functional communication scores on both measures than those that received low dose (five hours) SLT ( Analysis 7.1 ).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nCD000425-CMP-007-01.jpg

Comparison 7 High versus low dose SLT, Outcome 1 Functional communication.

Denes 1996 measured and compared participants' receptive language on the AAT Comprehension subtest and the Token Test. Only change‐from‐baseline data were available, which we present here ( Analysis 7.2 ). There was no evidence of a difference between the high and low dose SLT groups.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nCD000425-CMP-007-02.jpg

Comparison 7 High versus low dose SLT, Outcome 2 Receptive language: auditory comprehension (change from baseline).

Similarly, Denes 1996 measured participants' expressive language on the AAT naming and repetition subtests. Only change‐from‐baseline data were available ( Analysis 7.3 ). There was no evidence of a difference between the high and low dose SLT groups. However, on measures of written language, the participants that received high dose of SLT performed significantly better than those that received a low dose of SLT ( Analysis 7.4 ).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nCD000425-CMP-007-03.jpg

Comparison 7 High versus low dose SLT, Outcome 3 Expressive language: spoken (change from baseline).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nCD000425-CMP-007-04.jpg

Comparison 7 High versus low dose SLT, Outcome 4 Expressive language: written (change from baseline).

Five trials compared participants' overall level of aphasia severity following a high and low dose of SLT using the WAB ( Bakheit 2007 ; ORLA 2006 ; VERSE I ), the AAT ( Denes 1996 ), and the MTDDA ( Smith 1981iii ). Suitable statistical data allowing inclusion in the meta‐analysis were unavailable from Smith 1981iii , and Denes 1996 only reported change‐from‐baseline data, which are not included in this meta‐analysis of final value scores. On pooling the data, there was no evidence of a difference in the participants that received a high or low dose of SLT on measures of aphasia severity ( Analysis 7.5 ), although we did observe some non‐significant heterogeneity (P = 0.14; I 2 = 49%).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nCD000425-CMP-007-05.jpg

Comparison 7 High versus low dose SLT, Outcome 5 Severity of impairment: Aphasia Battery Score.

5. Number of dropouts

The numbers of participants that dropped out of trials in this comparison were available for Bakheit 2007 , Denes 1996 , ORLA 2006 and VERSE I and were partially available for Smith 1981iii . No participants appear to have been lost from the treatment or follow‐up time points in Denes 1996 or ORLA 2006 . It was unclear whether any were lost from FUATAC . Smith 1981iii excluded five additional participants (not included in this meta‐analysis) from the final analysis (three were found not to have aphasia and two died), but their group allocation was unclear. On pooling the data, significantly more participants (N = 99) were lost to the high dose SLT intervention groups versus the low dose SLT interventions (N = 87) (P = 0.03; OR 2.01 95% CI 1.07 to 3.79). There was no indication of heterogeneity. Of these participants, some were lost at follow‐up (eight from high dose and five from the low dose SLT groups) ( Bakheit 2007 ; VERSE I ; Analysis 7.6 ).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nCD000425-CMP-007-06.jpg

Comparison 7 High versus low dose SLT, Outcome 6 Number of dropouts for any reason.

6. Adherence to allocated intervention

Two of the five trials reporting dropouts described the reasons for loss of participants from within the study. Six participants voluntarily withdrew from the high dose SLT groups during the treatment phase, while one withdrew from the low dose group. There was no evidence of a significant difference between the groups ( Analysis 7.7 ).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nCD000425-CMP-007-07.jpg

Comparison 7 High versus low dose SLT, Outcome 7 Adherence to allocated intervention.

7. Follow‐up data (high dose versus low dose SLT)

Both Bakheit 2007 and VERSE I compared participants who received a high dose of SLT with those who received a low dose of SLT at follow‐up data collection points in relation to functional communication, severity of impairment, and number of dropouts.

VERSE I compared participants' functional language skills using the FCP and Discourse Analysis methods but found no evidence of a significant difference between the groups at follow‐up ( Analysis 8.1 ).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nCD000425-CMP-008-01.jpg

Comparison 8 High versus low dose SLT (follow‐up), Outcome 1 Functional communication.

Similarly, using the WAB as a measure of aphasia severity, there was no evidence of a difference between the groups at follow‐up when pooling data from Bakheit 2007 and VERSE I ( Analysis 8.2 ).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nCD000425-CMP-008-02.jpg

Comparison 8 High versus low dose SLT (follow‐up), Outcome 2 Severity of impairment: Aphasia Battery Score.

On pooling the follow‐up data across the three trials that reported dropouts ( Bakheit 2007 ; Smith 1981iii ; VERSE I ), there was no evidence of a difference between the groups that received a high dose of SLT and those that received a low dose ( Analysis 8.3 ).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nCD000425-CMP-008-03.jpg

Comparison 8 High versus low dose SLT (follow‐up), Outcome 3 Number of dropouts for any reason.

Early versus delayed SLT

Four trials delivered an early SLT intervention and delayed the SLT intervention for the other group ( B.A.Bar 2011ii ; MIT 2014ii , Lyon 1997 ; Varley 2016ii ). While Lyon 1997 incorporated a delayed intervention, we could not include the data in this comparison; the data collection point was prior to the delayed intervention, and thus the trial data contributes to the SLT versus no SLT comparison. The remaining trials compared groups on measures of functional communication, receptive language, expressive language, severity of impairment, number of dropouts, and adherence to allocated intervention.

Both B.A.Bar 2011ii and MIT 2014i measured participants' functional communication using the ANELT. The data for MIT 2014i , however, were unavailable at the time of updating this review and could not be included here. Data from B.A.Bar 2011ii demonstrate no evidence of a difference between the group that received early SLT versus SLT later after aphasia onset. Findings were similar on follow‐up of the participants four weeks later ( Analysis 9.1 ).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nCD000425-CMP-009-01.jpg

Comparison 9 Early versus delayed SLT, Outcome 1 Functional communication.

B.A.Bar 2011ii compared participants' auditory comprehension skills using the Token Test but found no evidence of a difference between the groups that received early SLT versus delayed SLT ( Analysis 9.2 ).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nCD000425-CMP-009-02.jpg

Comparison 9 Early versus delayed SLT, Outcome 2 Receptive language: auditory comprehension.

Similarly, participants' expressive language skills were captured using measures of naming ( B.A.Bar 2011ii ; Varley 2016ii ), writing ( B.A.Bar 2011ii ), repetition ( B.A.Bar 2011ii ; Varley 2016ii ) and word fluency (food and animal words) ( B.A.Bar 2011ii ). Investigators measured outcomes immediately after the intervention and one month later in B.A.Bar 2011ii or two months later in Varley 2016ii . There was no evidence of a difference between the groups on any of these measures or at these time points. We only present the naming (matched) and repetition (matched) data in these meta‐analyses ( Analysis 9.3 to Analysis 9.6 ). Pooling using the treated or control items from Varley 2016ii data did not alter this finding. We do not present these data here.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nCD000425-CMP-009-03.jpg

Comparison 9 Early versus delayed SLT, Outcome 3 Expressive language: naming.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nCD000425-CMP-009-06.jpg

Comparison 9 Early versus delayed SLT, Outcome 6 Expressive language: fluency.

The participants' performance on the AAT overall demonstrated no evidence of a difference between the severity of their aphasia ( Analysis 9.7 ).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nCD000425-CMP-009-07.jpg

Comparison 9 Early versus delayed SLT, Outcome 7 Severity of impairment.

MIT 2014i and Varley 2016ii reported dropouts, with six participants leaving the early SLT group and two leaving the delayed SLT group. There was no evidence of a difference between the groups ( Analysis 9.8 ). B.A.Bar 2011ii did not report any dropouts.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nCD000425-CMP-009-08.jpg

Comparison 9 Early versus delayed SLT, Outcome 8 Number of dropouts for any reason.

6. Follow‐up data (8 weeks)

Varley 2016ii followed up participants eight weeks after the delayed treatment and measured expressive language (naming and repetition) across treated, matched and control items. There was no evidence of a difference between the groups ( Analysis 10.1 ; Analysis 10.2) . Similarly there was no evidence of a difference in the number of participants dropping out form the early SLT intervention versus the delayed SLT group ( Analysis 10.3 ).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nCD000425-CMP-010-01.jpg

Comparison 10 Early versus delayed SLT (follow‐up), Outcome 1 Expressive language: naming.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nCD000425-CMP-010-02.jpg

Comparison 10 Early versus delayed SLT (follow‐up), Outcome 2 Expressive language: repetition.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nCD000425-CMP-010-03.jpg

Comparison 10 Early versus delayed SLT (follow‐up), Outcome 3 Number of dropouts for any reason.

SLT: short versus long duration

Five trials compared therapy of a long and short duration as measured by the weeks or months over which the SLT intervention was delivered. Examples of short SLT interventions lasted 2 weeks ( Pulvermuller 2001 ), 10 weeks ( SP‐I‐RiT ), or they had a mean duration of 11.4 weeks ( ORLA 2010 ), 20.8 weeks ( Meikle 1979 ), or they lasted between 6 and 9 months ( Di Carlo 1980 ). These were compared with therapy delivered over a longer period of time, ranging from 3 to 5 weeks ( Pulvermuller 2001 ), a mean of 13.31 weeks ( ORLA 2010 ), 37.13 weeks ( Meikle 1979 ), 50 weeks ( SP‐I‐RiT ), or between 5 and 22 months ( Di Carlo 1980 ). Groups were compared on measures of functional communication, receptive language, expressive language, mood, severity of impairment, and number of dropouts and adherence to allocated intervention ( Analysis 11.1 to Analysis 11.16 ).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nCD000425-CMP-011-01.jpg

Comparison 11 SLT of short versus long duration, Outcome 1 Functional communication.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nCD000425-CMP-011-16.jpg

Comparison 11 SLT of short versus long duration, Outcome 16 Adherence to allocated intervention.

Two trials compared participants' functional communication using measures of discourse or the Functional Communication Profile ( ORLA 2010 ; SP‐I‐RiT ). Pooling the data demonstrated that those individuals that had received SLT over a longer period of time performed significantly better on measures of functional communication than those who had received therapy over a short period of time (P = 0.002, SMD 0.81, CI 95% 0.23 to 1.40; ( Analysis 11.1 ). This finding was no longer evident at 50 weeks and one year follow‐up during the SP‐I‐RiT trial ( Analysis 11.2 ).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nCD000425-CMP-011-02.jpg

Comparison 11 SLT of short versus long duration, Outcome 2 Functional communication (follow‐up).

Two trials measured participants' auditory comprehension ( Pulvermuller 2001 ; SP‐I‐RiT ), and three assessed written language comprehension ( Di Carlo 1980 ; ORLA 2010 ; SP‐I‐RiT ). Trials evaluating auditory comprehension used the AAT comprehension subtest ( Pulvermuller 2001 ), the Token Test ( Pulvermuller 2001 ), and the Lisbon Aphasia Assessment Battery ( SP‐I‐RiT ). On pooling the AAT data with the LAAB data, there was a significant difference between the groups: participants who received therapy over a long period of time scored significantly higher on auditory comprehension tests than those who received SLT over a short period of time (P = 0.01, SMD 0.81, CI 95% 0.17 to 1.45 and low heterogeneity: I 2 = 0%). However, on pooling the Token Test data with the LAAB data, we observed significant heterogeneity (I 2 = 69%) and no evidence of a difference between the groups' auditory comprehension (SMD 0.49 CI 95% −0.67 to 1.65). We present the AAT data in Analysis 11.3 . There was no evidence of this extending to follow‐up data collected at 50 or 62 weeks ( Analysis 11.4 ; Analysis 11.5 ).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nCD000425-CMP-011-03.jpg

Comparison 11 SLT of short versus long duration, Outcome 3 Receptive language: auditory comprehension.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nCD000425-CMP-011-04.jpg

Comparison 11 SLT of short versus long duration, Outcome 4 Receptive language: comprehension (50 week follow‐up).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nCD000425-CMP-011-05.jpg

Comparison 11 SLT of short versus long duration, Outcome 5 Receptive language: comprehension (62 week follow‐up).

After pooling data from across three trials, participants' ability to read did not differ between groups ( ORLA 2010 , SP‐I‐RiT , Di Carlo 1980 ; Analysis 11.6 ).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nCD000425-CMP-011-06.jpg

Comparison 11 SLT of short versus long duration, Outcome 6 Receptive language: reading comprehension.

Three trials found no evidence of a difference between the groups' naming abilities when using the AAT naming subtest ( Pulvermuller 2001 ), the Lisbon Aphasia Assessment Battery ( SP‐I‐RiT ), or the Thorndike Lorge Word List by Thorndike 1944 ( Di Carlo 1980 ) ( Analysis 11.7 ). Similarly, there was no evidence of a difference between groups in writing abilities ( Analysis 11.8 ) or repetition ( Analysis 11.9 ). One small trial found that the group that received an SLT intervention for a longer period performed significantly better on measures of word fluency ( SP‐I‐RiT ; Analysis 11.10 ). Based on data from the same trial, there was no evidence of a difference between the groups at 50 or 62 weeks' follow‐up ( Analysis 11.11 ).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nCD000425-CMP-011-07.jpg

Comparison 11 SLT of short versus long duration, Outcome 7 Expressive language: naming.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nCD000425-CMP-011-08.jpg

Comparison 11 SLT of short versus long duration, Outcome 8 Expressive language: written.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nCD000425-CMP-011-09.jpg

Comparison 11 SLT of short versus long duration, Outcome 9 Expressive language: repetition.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nCD000425-CMP-011-10.jpg

Comparison 11 SLT of short versus long duration, Outcome 10 Expressive language: fluency.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nCD000425-CMP-011-11.jpg

Comparison 11 SLT of short versus long duration, Outcome 11 Expressive language: 50 and 62 weeks follow‐up.

SP‐I‐RiT also compared participants using the Stroke Aphasia Depression Questoinnaire following SLT of a long or short duration immediately after treatment and at 50 and 62 weeks' follow‐up. There was no evidence of a difference between the groups ( Analysis 11.12 ).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nCD000425-CMP-011-12.jpg

Comparison 11 SLT of short versus long duration, Outcome 12 Depression.

Four trials measured aphasia severity and compared participants who had received SLT over a long and short period of time. After pooling data from the WABAQ ( ORLA 2010 ), the PICA ( Meikle 1979 ), the AAT ( Pulvermuller 2001 ), and the BDAE ( SP‐I‐RiT ), there was no evidence of a difference between the groups ( Analysis 11.13 ). SP‐I‐RiT also gathered data on severity using the LIsbon Aphasia Assessment Battery Aphasia Quotient, but pooling this data instead of the BDAE did not alter the finding. At follow‐up, there was little indication of a difference between the groups ‐ no differences were observed on measures using the LAAB, while at one year the group that received a long period of SLT performed significantly better on the BDAE than those who had received SLT over a short period of time ( Analysis 11.14 ).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nCD000425-CMP-011-13.jpg

Comparison 11 SLT of short versus long duration, Outcome 13 Severity of impairment: Aphasia Battery Score.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nCD000425-CMP-011-14.jpg

Comparison 11 SLT of short versus long duration, Outcome 14 Severity of impairment: Aphasia Battery Score (follow‐up).

6. Number of dropouts and adherence to allocated intervention

Only Meikle 1979 reported any dropouts in this comparison, and there was no evidence of a difference between the groups ( Analysis 11.15 ) or in relation to adherence to the allocated intervention ( Analysis 11.16 ).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nCD000425-CMP-011-15.jpg

Comparison 11 SLT of short versus long duration, Outcome 15 Number of dropouts for any reason.

Group versus one‐to‐one SLT

Six trials compared a group‐based SLT intervention with conventional one‐to‐one SLT ( FUATAC ; Pulvermuller 2001 ; VERSE II ; Wertz 1981 ; Wilssens 2015 ; Yao 2005iii ). Within the group SLT interventions, participants received SLT in groups of 2 to 3 ( FUATAC ), 3 ( Pulvermuller 2001 ), 2 to 4 ( VERSE II ), 5 ( Wilssens 2015 ), between 3 to 7 ( Wertz 1981 ), and 10 ( Yao 2005iii ). Several group SLT interventions used a constraint‐induced aphasia therapy approach ( FUATAC ; Pulvermuller 2001 ; VERSE II ; Wilssens 2015 ) (only verbal responses were allowed). In contrast, other group interventions encouraged group discussion and recreational activities with a therapist ( Wertz 1981 ), or they focused on 'collective language strengthening training' ( Yao 2005iii ).

Participants receiving the one‐to‐one SLT intervention received a semantic therapy in Visch‐Brink 2001 and Wilssens 2015 or conventional SLT in FUATAC , Pulvermuller 2001 , VERSE II , Wertz 1981 and Yao 2005iii . Investigators made between‐intervention comparisons on a variety of measures: functional communication, receptive language, expressive language, quality of life, severity of impairment, number of dropouts, and adherence to allocated intervention. Studies did not measure psychosocial impact or economic measures.

Two trials measured change in functional communication using the CAL ( Pulvermuller 2001 ), the Conversational Rating Scale (CRS) ( Wertz 1981 ), and the Informants Rating of Functional Language (adapted form of the FCP) ( Wertz 1981 ). However, suitable statistical data were unavailable from these measures, and so we could not include them within the review. A later study took a subset of data from the Wertz 1981 trial and evaluated functional communication using the Pragmatic Protocol. In addition, we pooled data from Wilssens 2015 based on the ANELT with data from VERSE II on the percentage of content information units per minute in a sample of discourse. There was no evidence of a difference between the groups' performance on measures of functional communication ( Analysis 12.1 ).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nCD000425-CMP-012-01.jpg

Comparison 12 Group versus one‐to‐one SLT, Outcome 1 Functional communication.

Receptive language: auditory comprehension

Three trials measured participants' receptive language skills using the Token Test ( Pulvermuller 2001 ; Wertz 1981 ; Wilssens 2015 ), and two used the language comprehension subtest of the AAT ( Pulvermuller 2001 ; Wilssens 2015 ). Wertz 1981 reported mean values, but the SD values were unavailable. To facilitate inclusion of these data within the review, we imputed the SD value (13.93) from the Lincoln 1982 Token Test summary data. The reason for choosing this value was that both Wertz 1981 and Lincoln 1982 used the same form of the Token Test and used it to measure the language skills of similar participant groups. On pooling these data, there was no evidence of a difference between the groups' auditory comprehension skills as measured by either comprehension subtest ( Pulvermuller 2001 ; see Analysis 12.2 ).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nCD000425-CMP-012-02.jpg

Comparison 12 Group versus one‐to‐one SLT, Outcome 2 Receptive language: auditory comprehension.

Receptive language: other

Wertz 1981 used the PICA Gestural subtest to compare participants that had received group SLT and those that had received one‐to‐one SLT. Though the mean values were available to the review, the SD values were unavailable. We identified and imputed an SD value of 25.67 from Wertz 1986 , where the highest of three possible values in this trial from relevant clinical groups was chosen to facilitate inclusion of the study within the review. There was no evidence of a difference between the groups ( Analysis 12.3 ).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nCD000425-CMP-012-03.jpg

Comparison 12 Group versus one‐to‐one SLT, Outcome 3 Receptive language: other.

Expressive language: spoken

Participants' expressive language skills were compared using the naming subtest of the AAT ( Pulvermuller 2001 ; Wilssens 2015 ), the Boston Naming Test ( Wilssens 2015 ), measures of word fluency, repetition, and the PICA verbal subtest. On pooling the AAT naming data, there was no evidence of a difference between the groups' expressive language skills ( Analysis 12.4 ). This did not change when using the BNT data from Wilssens 2015 ) in the meta‐analysis in place of the AAT subtest data from the same trial (P = 0.58; SMD 0.22 95% CI −0.56 to 1.00).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nCD000425-CMP-012-04.jpg

Comparison 12 Group versus one‐to‐one SLT, Outcome 4 Expressive language: naming.

Wertz 1981 used the verbal subtest of the PICA to measure participants' language expression. The mean scores of participants who received group SLT and those that received one‐to‐one SLT were available, but SD data were not. We identified and imputed an SD value (20.01) from Wertz 1986 , choosing the highest of three possible values in this trial from relevant clinical groups to facilitate inclusion of the study within the review. There was no evidence of a difference between the groups ( Analysis 12.5 ).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nCD000425-CMP-012-05.jpg

Comparison 12 Group versus one‐to‐one SLT, Outcome 5 Expressive language: general.

Wertz 1981 used measures of word fluency to compare participants' word‐finding skills. Authors reported mean values for the participants receiving group SLT and those receiving one‐to‐one SLT, but not the SDs, so we could not include these results in the review.

Both Pulvermuller 2001 and Wilssens 2015 measured participants' repetition abilities using the AAT repetition subtest. They found no evidence of a difference between the participants who had received group SLT and those that received one‐to‐one SLT ( Analysis 12.6 ).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nCD000425-CMP-012-06.jpg

Comparison 12 Group versus one‐to‐one SLT, Outcome 6 Expressive language: repetition.

Wertz 1981 captured participants' written language skills using the graphic subtest of the PICA, and Wilssens 2015 used the AAT subtest. Authors reported mean values for participants who received group SLT and those who received one‐to‐one SLT, but SDs were unavailable. As with the other PICA data from Wertz 1981 , we identified and imputed an SD value (21.74) from Wertz 1986 , choosing the highest of three possible values in this trial from relevant clinical groups to facilitate inclusion of the study within the review. There was no evidence of a difference between participants' written language skills ( Analysis 12.7 ).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nCD000425-CMP-012-07.jpg

Comparison 12 Group versus one‐to‐one SLT, Outcome 7 Expressive language: written.

4. Quality of life

Of the trials in this section, only VERSE II measured participants' quality of life. Using the Stroke and Aphasia Quality of Life scale (SAQoL), the authors found no evidence of a difference between those that received group therapy and those that received one‐to‐one SLT ( Analysis 12.8 ).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nCD000425-CMP-012-08.jpg

Comparison 12 Group versus one‐to‐one SLT, Outcome 8 Quality of life.

Four trials measured the severity of participants' aphasia following one‐to‐one versus group SLT interventions using the CRRCAE AQ ( Yao 2005iii ), the PICA ( Wertz 1981 ), the AAT ( Pulvermuller 2001 ), and the WABAQ ( VERSE II ). Although the mean values for Wertz 1981 trial were available, the SD data were missing. We imputed an SD value (24.64) from Wertz 1986 to facilitate inclusion of the data within the review. On pooling the data from all four trials, there was no evidence of a difference between the scores of participants that received group SLT and those that received one‐to‐one SLT on this measure ( Analysis 12.9 ).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nCD000425-CMP-012-09.jpg

Comparison 12 Group versus one‐to‐one SLT, Outcome 9 Severity of impairment: Aphasia Battery Score.

Information on the number of participants leaving during the trials were available for most trials ( Pulvermuller 2001 ; VERSE II ; Wertz 1981 ; Wilssens 2015 ; Yao 2005iii ). Numbers of participants remaining in the trial were unclear for FUATAC . Three trials had no dropouts ( Pulvermuller 2001 ; Wilssens 2015 ; Yao 2005iii ). In contrast, almost half of those randomised in Wertz 1981 failed to remain in the study (33 dropouts); when we pooled these results with the data from VERSE II , there was no evidence of a difference in the numbers lost, with 25 leaving the group interventions and 20 leaving the one‐to‐one interventions ( Analysis 12.10 ).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nCD000425-CMP-012-10.jpg

Comparison 12 Group versus one‐to‐one SLT, Outcome 10 Number of dropouts for any reason.

Wertz 1981 reported that 22 participants returned home or declined to travel to receive the allocated treatment intervention (see Table 7 ), but further details on the exact number of participants declining the interventions or how these numbers were split across intervention groups were unavailable. Similarly, while we know that three participants dropped out of the VERSE II trial, the reasons are unclear.

8. Follow‐up data (group versus one‐to‐one SLT)

Two trials continued to follow up participants who had received SLT in group or one‐to‐one sessions ( VERSE II ; Yao 2005iii ), measuring functional communication, severity of aphasia, quality of life, and number of dropouts during the follow‐up period.

VERSE II assessed functional communication, measuring the percentage of content units per minute in the discourse analysis samples at 12 weeks' and 26 weeks' follow‐up. There was no evidence of a difference between the groups ( Analysis 13.1 ).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nCD000425-CMP-013-01.jpg

Comparison 13 Group versus one‐to‐one SLT (follow‐up), Outcome 1 Functional communication.

Severity of aphasia

VERSE II used the WABAQ to evaluate the severity of participants' aphasia, while Yao 2005iii used the CRRCAE AQ. On pooling the three‐month follow‐up data, there was no evidence of a difference between the groups ( VERSE II ; Yao 2005iii ; and is presented in Analysis 13.2 ). Pooling the WABAQ 26‐week data with the CRRCAE AQ data, showed that the participants that had received group therapy performed significantly better on measures of aphasia severity than those who had received one‐to‐one therapy (P = 0.03, SMD 0.82, 95% CI 0.06 to 1.58).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nCD000425-CMP-013-02.jpg

Comparison 13 Group versus one‐to‐one SLT (follow‐up), Outcome 2 Severity of impairment: Aphasia Battery Score.

Quality of life

Similarly, VERSE II measured quality of life using the SAQoL at 12 and 26 weeks and found no evidence of a difference between the groups at either time point ( Analysis 13.3 ).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nCD000425-CMP-013-03.jpg

Comparison 13 Group versus one‐to‐one SLT (follow‐up), Outcome 3 Quality of life.

Only VERSE II reported the number of dropouts at follow‐up points. There was no evidence of a difference between the groups ( Analysis 13.4 ).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nCD000425-CMP-013-04.jpg

Comparison 13 Group versus one‐to‐one SLT (follow‐up), Outcome 4 Number of dropouts for any reason.

Volunteer‐facilitated SLT versus professionally facilitated SLT

Four trials compared participants who received volunteer‐facilitated SLT versus SLT provided directly by a professional therapist ( Leal 1993 ; Meikle 1979 ; Meinzer 2007 ; Wertz 1986iii ). In most cases a speech and language therapist delivered the professional SLT ( Leal 1993 ; Meikle 1979 ; Wertz 1986iii ), although a specialist psychologist delivered the constraint‐induced SLT intervention in Meinzer 2007 . We believed that this trial was suitable for inclusion in this comparison, as it compared interventions delivered by a professional clinician with delivery facilitated by a trained volunteer.

Most volunteers were family members ( Leal 1993 ; Meinzer 2007 ; Wertz 1986iii ), although some trialists also engaged friends or recruited volunteers unknown to the participants ( Meikle 1979 ; Wertz 1986iii ). Volunteer groups across the trials all received SLT training, information on their patient's communication impairment, access to working materials or equipment, and ongoing support or supervision. Most studies indicated that the professional therapist was accountable for, or informed the design and content of, the volunteer‐facilitated SLT ( Meikle 1979 ; Meinzer 2007 ; Wertz 1986iii ).

The professional therapists intervened in a formal or clinical setting ( Leal 1993 ; Meikle 1979 ; Meinzer 2007 ; Wertz 1986iii ). The duration of the professional SLT interventions varied from three hours daily for 10 consecutive days in Meinzer 2007 , up to three hours weekly for six months in Leal 1993 , four hours weekly for an average of nine months (SD 22 weeks) in Meikle 1979 , or 10 hours weekly for approximately three months in Wertz 1986iii ). The duration of volunteer‐facilitated SLT and professionally delivered SLT was the same for two trials ( Meinzer 2007 ; Wertz 1986iii ). The volunteers in Meikle 1979 visited participants four times weekly over a shorter period of time (average of five months, SD 13.5 weeks), while the duration of the volunteer‐facilitated SLT in Leal 1993 is unclear. The four trials used a range of measures to compare volunteer‐facilitated SLT with professional SLT delivery including functional communication, receptive language, expressive language, severity of impairment, number of dropouts, and adherence to allocation.The studies did not compare psychosocial or economic measures.

Only Wertz 1986iii formally measured the functional communication skills of the participants that received volunteer‐facilitated SLT or professional SLT using the CADL and the FCP. There was no evidence of a difference between the groups ( Analysis 14.1 ).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nCD000425-CMP-014-01.jpg

Comparison 14 Volunteer‐facilitated versus professional SLT, Outcome 1 Functional communication.

Three trials evaluated participants' language comprehension abilities using the Token Test ( Leal 1993 ; Meinzer 2007 ; Wertz 1986iii ), but suitable statistical data were unavailable for Leal 1993 . Meinzer 2007 and Wertz 1986iii used the Token Test to measure differences in the auditory comprehension of participants that received volunteer‐facilitated SLT and those that received professional therapy input. There was no significant difference between the two groups' auditory comprehension ( Analysis 14.2 ). The comprehension subtest of the AAT measures both auditory and reading comprehension and was used by Meinzer 2007 to compare a group receiving volunteer‐facilitated SLT or SLT delivered by experienced professionals. There was no evidence of a difference between the groups' comprehension on these measures ( Analysis 14.2 ).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nCD000425-CMP-014-02.jpg

Comparison 14 Volunteer‐facilitated versus professional SLT, Outcome 2 Receptive language: auditory comprehension.

Receptive language: reading comprehension

Wertz 1986iii measured participants' reading comprehension using the RCBA. There was no evidence of a difference between the groups. Data from the AAT that Meinzer 2007 used to measure both auditory and reading comprehension are also presented (but not pooled) in this section ( Analysis 14.3 ).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nCD000425-CMP-014-03.jpg

Comparison 14 Volunteer‐facilitated versus professional SLT, Outcome 3 Receptive language: reading comprehension.

Wertz 1986iii compared participants' receptive language skills using the PICA gestural subtest. There was no evidence of a difference between the groups ( Analysis 14.4 ).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nCD000425-CMP-014-04.jpg

Comparison 14 Volunteer‐facilitated versus professional SLT, Outcome 4 Receptive language: other.

Meinzer 2007 measured expressive language skills using the naming subtest of the AAT, while Wertz 1986iii used the PICA verbal subtest to compare participants that received volunteer‐facilitated SLT and those that received professional SLT. There was no evidence of a difference between the groups ( Analysis 14.5 ).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nCD000425-CMP-014-05.jpg

Comparison 14 Volunteer‐facilitated versus professional SLT, Outcome 5 Expressive language: spoken.

The group that received the volunteer‐facilitated SLT intervention in Meinzer 2007 scored significantly higher on the repetition subtest (AAT) than those that received SLT from a professional therapist (P = 0.05, MD 13.50, 95% CI 0.19 to 26.81) ( Analysis 14.6 ).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nCD000425-CMP-014-06.jpg

Comparison 14 Volunteer‐facilitated versus professional SLT, Outcome 6 Expressive language: repetition.

The written language subtest of the AAT measures reading aloud and writing to dictation. Meinzer 2007 compared the groups that received volunteer‐facilitated SLT versus professionally delivered SLT using this measure. Similarly, Wertz 1986iii used the PICA graphic subtest to compare the groups. They found no evidence of a difference ( Analysis 14.7 ).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nCD000425-CMP-014-07.jpg

Comparison 14 Volunteer‐facilitated versus professional SLT, Outcome 7 Expressive language: written.

Four trials compared the two groups using measures of overall severity of aphasia following either volunteer‐facilitated SLT or professional SLT using the PICA ( Meikle 1979 ; Wertz 1986iii ), an AQ ( Leal 1993 ), and the AAT profile ( Meinzer 2007 ). Summary data from the groups' performance was unavailable for Leal 1993 , preventing inclusion within the review. There was no evidence of a difference between the two groups following pooling of data from the PICA and AAT profile ( Analysis 14.8 ).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nCD000425-CMP-014-08.jpg

Comparison 14 Volunteer‐facilitated versus professional SLT, Outcome 8 Severity of impairment: Aphasia Battery Score.

All four trials reported the number of participants that were lost to the trial following randomisation. Three trials lost a total of 30 participants from the groups receiving volunteer‐facilitated SLT, while 22 participants dropped out of the groups that received professional SLT interventions ( Leal 1993 ; Meikle 1979 ; Wertz 1986iii ). Meinzer 2007 had no participant withdrawals. An additional participant that had received volunteer‐facilitated SLT and two participants that had received professional SLT were lost at follow‐up ( Wertz 1986iii ). No participants were reported lost at follow‐up from Leal 1993 . Overall, there was no evidence of a difference in the numbers of dropouts between the groups that received volunteer‐facilitated SLT and those that had professionally delivered SLT ( Analysis 14.9 ).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nCD000425-CMP-014-09.jpg

Comparison 14 Volunteer‐facilitated versus professional SLT, Outcome 9 Number of dropouts for any reason.

Only two of the three trials provided details for participant withdrawals ( Leal 1993 ; Meikle 1979 ). Overall there was no difference between the groups. Five participants declined to continue participating in the volunteer‐facilitated SLT groups, while four declined in the professional SLT groups ( Analysis 14.10 ).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nCD000425-CMP-014-10.jpg

Comparison 14 Volunteer‐facilitated versus professional SLT, Outcome 10 Adherence to allocated intervention.

Computer‐facilitated versus professionally facilitated SLT

Three trials compared an SLT intervention that was facilitated by a computer versus SLT that relied only on professional therapist support ( ORLA 2010 , Woolf 2015i , Wertz 1981 ). In ORLA 2010 all 25 participants received 24 one‐hour sessions of an Oral Reading for Language in Aphasia (ORLA) treatment. The rate of delivery of therapy ranged from one to four sessions per week per participant, with a mean overall treatment duration of 12.26 weeks (range 6 to 22 weeks). The dosage of therapy was similar across the comparison groups randomised within Wertz 1981 (352 hours) and Woolf 2015i (8 hours). Similarly, the groups within the trials did not differ in the number of weeks of treatment received. The trial compared computer‐facilitated SLT with professional SLT delivery across a range of measures, including functional communication, receptive language, expressive language, severity of impairment, number of dropouts, and follow‐up data. Studies did not evaluate psychosocial or economic measures.

ORLA 2010 reported two measures of discourse efficiency based on a picture description and narrative discourse samples (words per minute and content information units per minute; Nicholas 1995 ). Woolf 2015i also captured discourse measures (substantive turns, content words per turn and nouns per turn) based on an unstructured conversational sample. On pooling the content information data from both Woolf 2015i and ORLA 2010 with the Wertz 1981 Pragmatic Protocol data, there was no indication of a difference between the two groups' functional communication ( Analysis 15.1 ), nor did this finding alter on pooling the Wertz 1981 data with the other discourse summary data.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nCD000425-CMP-015-01.jpg

Comparison 15 Computer‐mediated versus professional SLT, Outcome 1 Functional communication.

Investigators compared participants' auditory and reading comprehension using the Token Test ( Wertz 1981 ), the PICA gestural subtest ( Wertz 1981 ), and the WAB reading comprehension subtest ( ORLA 2010 ). There was no indication of a difference between the groups that received SLT facilitated by computer and those that received SLT via a professional therapist on these receptive language measures ( Analysis 15.2 ).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nCD000425-CMP-015-02.jpg

Comparison 15 Computer‐mediated versus professional SLT, Outcome 2 Receptive language.

Both Wertz 1981 (PICA verbal subtest) and Woolf 2015i (picture naming test with score for treated, untreated and total) used measures of expressive language to compare trial groups. Participants who used a computer during therapy performed better on measures of untreated words than the participants who worked directly with a professional therapist. There was no other evidence of a difference between the groups ( Analysis 15.3 ). ORLA 2010 assessed participants' writing skills using the WAB writing subtest, and Wertz 1981 used the PICA graphic subtest. There was no evidence of a difference between the two groups' writing skills ( Analysis 15.4 ).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nCD000425-CMP-015-03.jpg

Comparison 15 Computer‐mediated versus professional SLT, Outcome 3 Expressive language.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nCD000425-CMP-015-04.jpg

Comparison 15 Computer‐mediated versus professional SLT, Outcome 4 Expressive language: written.

On pooling the data from ORLA 2010 (WABAQ) and the PICA overall ( Wertz 1981 ), there was no evidence of a significant difference between the participants that accessed SLT via a computer interface and those that had accessed it via a professional therapist ( Analysis 15.5 ).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nCD000425-CMP-015-05.jpg

Comparison 15 Computer‐mediated versus professional SLT, Outcome 5 Severity of impairment.

None of the participants in ORLA 2010 were lost during the study. While Wertz 1981 lost participants in both the group with access to a computer during therapy (N=15) and the group that had a professional therapist to support their therapy (N=16), there was no evidence of a difference between the number of dropouts between these groups ( Analysis 15.6 ).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nCD000425-CMP-015-06.jpg

Comparison 15 Computer‐mediated versus professional SLT, Outcome 6 Number of dropouts for any reason.

6. Follow‐up data

Woolf 2015i followed participants up at six weeks and found no evidence of a difference between the groups accessing therapy via computer and those via a professional therapist as measured by the substantive turns, content words per turn, or the number of nouns per turn in an unstructured conversational sample ( Analysis 16.1 ).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nCD000425-CMP-016-01.jpg

Comparison 16 Computer‐mediated versus professional SLT (follow‐up), Outcome 1 Functional communication (6 weeks).

Similarly, Woolf 2015i measured participants' expressive language skills at six weeks' follow‐up looking at treated and untreated Spoken Picture Naming items. They found no evidence of a difference in total Spoken Picture Naming treated items from the test. The participants who had access to computer‐facilitated SLT named more of the untreated items than the participants who had the support of a professional therapist face‐to‐face ( Analysis 16.2 ).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nCD000425-CMP-016-02.jpg

Comparison 16 Computer‐mediated versus professional SLT (follow‐up), Outcome 2 Expressive language: naming (6 weeks).

Semantic SLT versus other approaches to SLT

Four trials compared participants that received SLT interventions based on a semantic therapeutic approach with those that received phonologically based SLT ( RATS ), communicative SLT ( RATS‐2 ), a repetition in the presence of a picture approach SLT ( SEMaFORE ), or CIAT approach to SLT ( Wilssens 2015 ). In the RATS‐2 semantic SLT intervention, participants in this arm could also have received a phonologically based SLT in conjunction with or instead of the semantic approach depending on the individual participant's needs. Therapy regimen was similar across both groups, with the semantic intervention being delivered over 9 to 10 days ( Wilssens 2015 ), six weeks ( SEMaFORE ), up to six months ( RATS‐2 ), or 40 weeks ( RATS ). Regardless of whether they were randomised to receive a semantically based SLT approach or another type of SLT, participants received 13.5 hours ( SEMaFORE ), an average of 19 hours ( Wilssens 2015 ), 40 to 60 hours ( RATS ), or 52 hours of SLT ( RATS‐2 ). Studies compared groups across a range of measures, including functional communication, receptive language, expressive language, number of dropouts, and adherence to allocated intervention. The trials did not assess psychosocial or economic measures. The SEMaFORE trial, although complete, was not yet fully published, so no suitable data were available for inclusion in the meta‐analyses in this section.

Three trials measured functional communication using the ANELT ( RATS ; RATS‐2 ; Wilssens 2015 ), and one used the CETI ( Wilssens 2015 ). On pooling the ANELT data, there was no evidence of a difference between the functional communication of groups that received a semantic SLT approach compared with those that received another SLT approach ( Analysis 17.1 ). There was no change in this finding upon pooling the Wilssens 2015 CETI data with the ANELT data from RATS and RATS‐2 .

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nCD000425-CMP-017-01.jpg

Comparison 17 Semantic SLT versus other SLT, Outcome 1 Functional communication.

Both RATS‐2 and Wilssens 2015 measured participants' auditory comprehension using the Token Test, and on pooling the data, there was no evidence of a difference between the groups ( Analysis 17.2 ). Wilssens 2015 also used the AAT comprehension test but found no difference between the groups' comprehension skills ( Analysis 17.2 ).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nCD000425-CMP-017-02.jpg

Comparison 17 Semantic SLT versus other SLT, Outcome 2 Receptive language: auditory comprehension.

Three trials compared participants' language skills using the Semantic Association Test ( RATS ; RATS‐2 ; Wilssens 2015 ). On pooling the data there was no evidence of a difference between the groups that received semantic‐based SLT and those that received another SLT approach. Similarly, on the PALPA measures of Semantic Association ( RATS‐2 ; Wilssens 2015 ), the Auditory Lexical Decision ( RATS ; RATS‐2 ; Wilssens 2015 ), or the Auditory Synonym Judgement test ( Wilssens 2015 ), there was no evidence of a difference between the groups' performance ( Analysis 17.3 ).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nCD000425-CMP-017-03.jpg

Comparison 17 Semantic SLT versus other SLT, Outcome 3 Receptive language: other.

Expressing language: naming

Wilssens 2015 compared participants' naming abilities using the AAT naming subtest and the BNT ( Analysis 17.4 ). There was no evidence of a difference between the groups.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nCD000425-CMP-017-04.jpg

Comparison 17 Semantic SLT versus other SLT, Outcome 4 Expressive language: naming.

Expressing language: writing

Similarly, Wilssens 2015 used the AAT writing subtest to compare participants' writing skills and found no evidence of a difference between the groups ( Analysis 17.5 ).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nCD000425-CMP-017-05.jpg

Comparison 17 Semantic SLT versus other SLT, Outcome 5 Expressive language: written.

Expressing language: repetition

Two trials compared participants' repetition skills using the PALPA non‐word repetition test ( RATS‐2 ; Wilssens 2015 ), and one used the AAT repetition subtest ( Wilssens 2015 ). There was no indication of a difference between the groups ( Analysis 17.6 ).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nCD000425-CMP-017-06.jpg

Comparison 17 Semantic SLT versus other SLT, Outcome 6 Expressive language: repetition.

Expressing language: fluency

RATS‐2 measured participants' word fluency using letters and semantic subtests but found no evidence of a difference between the groups ( Analysis 17.7 ).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nCD000425-CMP-017-07.jpg

Comparison 17 Semantic SLT versus other SLT, Outcome 7 Expressive language: fluency.

4. Number of dropouts

Wilssens 2015 had no dropouts during the course of the trial. In contrast, between RATS and RATS‐2 , 10 participants were lost from the semantic SLT interventions compared with 12 from the other SLT interventions ( Analysis 17.8 ).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nCD000425-CMP-017-08.jpg

Comparison 17 Semantic SLT versus other SLT, Outcome 8 Number of dropouts for any reason.

5. Adherence to allocated intervention

Of the trials that reported dropouts, eight participants were unable to comply with the allocated semantic SLT intervention compared with eight from the phonological SLT and communicative SLT groups ( RATS ; RATS‐2 ; see Analysis 17.9 ).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nCD000425-CMP-017-09.jpg

Comparison 17 Semantic SLT versus other SLT, Outcome 9 Adherence to allocated intervention.

Constraint‐induced aphasia therapy versus other SLT

Five trials have recently emerged comparing a CIAT SLT approach with either conventional one‐to‐one SLT ( FUATAC ; Pulvermuller 2001 ; VERSE II ), another group therapy ( Sickert 2014 ), or a semantic SLT approach ( Wilssens 2015 ). The CIAT was delivered over 10 days ( Pulvermuller 2001 ; Wilssens 2015 ), 15 days ( Sickert 2014 ), five weeks ( VERSE II ), and six weeks ( FUATAC ). The comparator SLT approach was delivered over 15 to 20 hours ( VERSE II ), 19 hours ( Wilssens 2015 ), 22.5 hours ( FUATAC ), 30 hours ( Sickert 2014 ), or an average of 34 hours ( Pulvermuller 2001 ). The duration of the contrasting therapy provision ranged from 9 to 10 days ( Wilssens 2015 ), 15 days ( Sickert 2014 ), three to five weeks ( Pulvermuller 2001 ), five weeks ( VERSE II ), and six weeks ( FUATAC ). Three trials controlled the duration and dose of therapy across both groups ( Sickert 2014 ; VERSE II ; Wilssens 2015 ).

Three trials compared participants that received CIAT to those that received another SLT approach on measures of functional communication, including the ANELT ( Wilssens 2015 ), Discourse Analysis (correct information numbers per minute during samples of picture description and procedural discourse) ( VERSE II ), the spontaneous speech AAT subtest ( Sickert 2014 ), and the CETI ( Wilssens 2015 ). On pooling the ANELT, Discourse Analaysis scores, and the AAT subtest data, there was no evidence of a difference between the groups ( Analysis 18.1 ). This finding did not change when the CETI data were included in the meta‐analysis instead of the ANELT data.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nCD000425-CMP-018-01.jpg

Comparison 18 Constraint‐induced aphasia therapy versus other SLT, Outcome 1 Functional communication.

Three trials used both the Token Test and the AAT auditory comprehension subtest to compare participants' auditory language skills ( Pulvermuller 2001 ; Sickert 2014 ; Wilssens 2015 ). Despite pooling the data from across these trials on each of these measures, there was no evidence of a difference between the groups ( Analysis 18.2 ).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nCD000425-CMP-018-02.jpg

Comparison 18 Constraint‐induced aphasia therapy versus other SLT, Outcome 2 Receptive language: auditory comprehension.

Wilssens 2015 also compared the groups receiving CIAT versus a semantic SLT approach on the Semantic Association Test, the PALPA Semantic Association, the Auditory Lexical Decision test, and Auditory Synonym Judgement. There was no indication of a difference between the groups ( Analysis 18.3 ).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nCD000425-CMP-018-03.jpg

Comparison 18 Constraint‐induced aphasia therapy versus other SLT, Outcome 3 Receptive language: other.

Investigators compared participants' naming abilities using the AAT naming subtest in three trials ( Pulvermuller 2001 ; Sickert 2014 ; Wilssens 2015 ), while one trial used the Boston Naming Test ( Wilssens 2015 ). On pooling the AAT naming subtest data, there was no evidence of a difference between the groups nor was there any indication of a difference on the BNT ( Analysis 18.4 ).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nCD000425-CMP-018-04.jpg

Comparison 18 Constraint‐induced aphasia therapy versus other SLT, Outcome 4 Expressive language: naming.

There was no evidence of a difference between the groups' performance on measuring repetition using the AAT subtest in Pulvermuller 2001 , Sickert 2014 , and Wilssens 2015 nor when using the PALPA non‐words repetition subtest in Wilssens 2015 ( Analysis 18.5 ).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nCD000425-CMP-018-05.jpg

Comparison 18 Constraint‐induced aphasia therapy versus other SLT, Outcome 5 Expressive language: repetition.

Expressive language: writing

Both Sickert 2014 and Wilssens 2015 measured participants' writing skills on the AAT writing subtests, but on pooling the data there was no evidence of a difference between the groups ( Analysis 18.6 ).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nCD000425-CMP-018-06.jpg

Comparison 18 Constraint‐induced aphasia therapy versus other SLT, Outcome 6 Expressive language: written.

4. Quality of Life

VERSE II measured participants' quality of life using the SAQoL and found no evidence of a difference between those that received CIAT SLT and those that received a conventional SLT approach ( Analysis 18.7 ).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nCD000425-CMP-018-07.jpg

Comparison 18 Constraint‐induced aphasia therapy versus other SLT, Outcome 7 Quality of life.

Only two trials measured the severity of participants' aphasia: Pulvermuller 2001 used the AAT overall score, and VERSE II used the WABAQ. On pooling the data, there was no evidence of a difference between the groups ( Analysis 18.8 ).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nCD000425-CMP-018-08.jpg

Comparison 18 Constraint‐induced aphasia therapy versus other SLT, Outcome 8 Severity of impairment.

VERSE II measured participants' functional communication using a Discourse Analysis score, quality of life using the SAQoL, and the severity of aphasia using the WABAQ at 12 and 26 weeks follow‐up. There was no evidence of a difference between the groups that had received CIAT versus conventional SLT at these time points ( Analysis 19.1 ; Analysis 19.2 ; Analysis 19.3 ).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nCD000425-CMP-019-01.jpg

Comparison 19 Constraint‐induced aphasia therapy versus other SLT (follow‐up), Outcome 1 Functional communication.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nCD000425-CMP-019-02.jpg

Comparison 19 Constraint‐induced aphasia therapy versus other SLT (follow‐up), Outcome 2 Quality of life.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nCD000425-CMP-019-03.jpg

Comparison 19 Constraint‐induced aphasia therapy versus other SLT (follow‐up), Outcome 3 Severity of impairment.

Experimental SLT versus other SLT

Additional studies evaluated a range of other experimental approaches to SLT versus an alternative SLT approach.

SLT with a gestural adjunct during language production.
Melodic intonation therapy (MIT)
Functional SLT
Operant training
Verb comprehension
Discourse therapy
Task‐specific naming and sentence production
Language oriented therapy
Systematic Therapy for Auditory Comprehension Disorders in Aphasic Patients (STACDAP)
Filmed programmed instruction

In most cases, investigators broadly described the comparison treatment as 'conventional' SLT. In MIT 2014i the comparison was to therapy that focused on language comprehension and written language, while in Crerar 1996 the comparison was to preposition therapy. Additionally, many of these experimental interventions were evaluated in randomised controlled trials that were feasibility studies in nature and have so far occurred in isolation. Thus, pooled analysis was not possible. For completeness within this review, however, we have presented these interventions below.

SLT with gestural adjunct versus 'conventional' SLT (no gesture)

Two trials compared conventional therapy (with no gestural movement) versus an SLT intervention with a gestural adjunct: Crosson 2014 by encouraging the use of a gesture during naming activities, and Drummond 1981 by supporting cueing. The format of the summary data reported within Drummond 1981 prevented inclusion in the meta‐analyses. We present data from Crosson 2014 comparing functional communication, expressive language and severity of aphasia measures post‐therapy and at three‐month follow‐up in Analysis 20.1 to Analysis 20.6 . There was no evidence of a significant difference between the groups.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nCD000425-CMP-020-01.jpg

Comparison 20 SLT with gestural adjunct versus SLT, Outcome 1 Functional communication.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nCD000425-CMP-020-06.jpg

Comparison 20 SLT with gestural adjunct versus SLT, Outcome 6 Severity of impairment: Aphasia Battery Score (follow‐up).

MIT versus SLT (excluding targeted spoken verbal production)

One trial compared a melodic intonation therapy approach (MIT) to SLT, focusing on written language production, language comprehension, and non‐verbal communication strategies (i.e. non‐language production target) ( MIT 2014i ). The data for this trial relating to measures of functional communication, expressive language (naming and repetition), and number of dropouts can be seen in Analysis 21.1 to Analysis 21.4 . Repetition of trained MIT items showed some evidence of effect, but otherwise there was no evidence of a difference between the groups. Data from MIT 2014ii are as yet unavailable.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nCD000425-CMP-021-01.jpg

Comparison 21 Melodic intonation therapy versus other SLT, Outcome 1 Functional communication.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nCD000425-CMP-021-04.jpg

Comparison 21 Melodic intonation therapy versus other SLT, Outcome 4 Number of dropouts for any reason.

Functional versus conventional SLT

The randomised comparison of a functional SLT approach with a conventional SLT intervention is presented as measured by ratings on the CETI ( Hinckley 2001 ). There was no evidence of a difference between the groups ( Analysis 22.1 ). Other data were available but only as change from baseline summary data and thus we did not include them here.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nCD000425-CMP-022-01.jpg

Comparison 22 Functional SLT versus conventional SLT, Outcome 1 Functional communication.

Operant training SLT versus conventional SLT

The randomised comparisons taken from the cross‐over trials compared an operant training SLT intervention with conventional SLT plus an attention control ( Lincoln 1984b ; Lincoln 1982i ; Lincoln 1982ii ). We present these results separately within the data and analysis tables for information purposes ( Analysis 23.1 to Analysis 23.5 ). Lincoln 1982i and Lincoln 1982ii randomised participants across four groups that compared SLT plus an operant training adjunct versus SLT plus a social support and stimulation adjunct. In both of these trials, we extracted the means and SD from unpublished individual patient data, which are inclusive of the treatment cross‐over period. Given the complementary nature of the cross‐over intervention (SLT plus operant training or SLT plus social support) and the clinically relevant nature of the cross‐over treatments, we felt it was appropriate to include these data within the review. We present data relating to measures of receptive and expressive language and severity of aphasia in Analysis 23.1 to Analysis 23.5 .

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nCD000425-CMP-023-01.jpg

Comparison 23 Operant training SLT versus conventional SLT, Outcome 1 Receptive language: auditory comprehension.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nCD000425-CMP-023-05.jpg

Comparison 23 Operant training SLT versus conventional SLT, Outcome 5 Severity of impairment.

Verb comprehension SLT versus preposition comprehension SLT

Crerar 1996 compared a computer‐mediated approach to verb comprehension therapy with a computer‐mediated preposition comprehension therapy. The trial had a cross‐over design, and we only included data collected prior to the point of cross‐over in the review. The participant group included people with acquired language impairment as a result of other neurological causes, and some participants in the main trial were not truly randomly allocated to an intervention, undergoing a quasi‐random allocation as a result of their language impairment profile, transport situation, or geographical location. We extracted and included in the review only the data from participants with aphasia as a result of stroke that underwent an adequate randomisation procedure. We present the data from the measures of receptive language, expressive language and severity of aphasia in Analysis 24.1 to Analysis 24.4 .

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nCD000425-CMP-024-01.jpg

Comparison 24 Verb comprehension SLT versus preposition comprehension SLT, Outcome 1 Receptive language: auditory comprehension.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nCD000425-CMP-024-04.jpg

Comparison 24 Verb comprehension SLT versus preposition comprehension SLT, Outcome 4 Severity of impairment: Aphasia Battery Score.

Discourse therapy versus conventional SLT

One trial compared participants that received therapy aiming to support the development and production of discourse language with those that received conventional deficit‐focused SLT on measures of word, sentence and discourse performance across four discourse genre, measures of naming, sentence production, and comprehension ( NARNIA 2013 ). There was no evidence of a difference between the groups ( Analysis 25.1 to Analysis 25.3 ).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nCD000425-CMP-025-01.jpg

Comparison 25 Discourse therapy versus conventional therapy, Outcome 1 Functional communication.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nCD000425-CMP-025-03.jpg

Comparison 25 Discourse therapy versus conventional therapy, Outcome 3 Expressive language: naming.

Task‐specific naming and sentence production SLT versus conventional SLT

Van Steenbrugge 1981 compared participants that received a 'task‐specific' approach to SLT focused on naming and sentence production versus a conventional 'general stimulation' approach to SLT using measures of the Functional Expression (FE) Scale, measures of naming, and sentence construction. There was no evidence of a difference between the groups ( Analysis 26.1 to Analysis 26.6 ).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nCD000425-CMP-026-01.jpg

Comparison 26 'Task Specific' production versus conventional therapy, Outcome 1 Functional communication.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nCD000425-CMP-026-06.jpg

Comparison 26 'Task Specific' production versus conventional therapy, Outcome 6 Expressive language: treated items.

Language oriented therapy (LOT) versus conventional SLT

Based on psycholinguistic principles, Shewan 1984i compared LOT versus a conventional stimulation‐facilitation approach, using the WAB and the ACTS to measure outcomes but suitable summary data were unavailable and so these could not be included in the meta‐analyses. There was no evidence of a difference between the groups in relation to numbers of participants dropping out or adherence rates ( Analysis 27.1 ; Analysis 27.2 ).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nCD000425-CMP-027-01.jpg

Comparison 27 Language oriented therapy (LOT) versus conventional SLT, Outcome 1 Number of dropouts for any reason.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nCD000425-CMP-027-02.jpg

Comparison 27 Language oriented therapy (LOT) versus conventional SLT, Outcome 2 Adherence to allocated intervention.

Task‐specific SLT versus conventional SLT

Prins 1989 compared an SLT intervention focusing specifically on auditory comprehension problems (STACDAP) versus conventional stimulation therapy using functional communication indicators and receptive and expressive language outcome measures. There was no evidence of a difference between the groups ( Analysis 28.1 to Analysis 28.7 ).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nCD000425-CMP-028-01.jpg

Comparison 28 Auditory comprehension SLT versus conventional SLT, Outcome 1 Functional communication.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nCD000425-CMP-028-07.jpg

Comparison 28 Auditory comprehension SLT versus conventional SLT, Outcome 7 Expressive language: spoken sentence.

Filmed programme instruction plus SLT versus conventional SLT

Di Carlo 1980 compared the use of a filmed adjunct to SLT with conventional SLT approaches on measures of receptive language. There was no evidence of a difference between the groups ( Analysis 29.1 ) .

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nCD000425-CMP-029-01.jpg

Comparison 29 FIlmed programme instruction versus conventional SLT, Outcome 1 Expressive language: naming.

We updated this complex review of the effectiveness of SLT interventions for people with aphasia following stroke to reflect new evidence and developments in clinical practice. We assessed whether SLT is more effective than no SLT, whether SLT is more effective than social support and stimulation, and whether one SLT intervention is more effective than another. We identified, synthesised and presented data from 57 trials (and 3002 participants) in this review.

Summary of main results

Our review includes information on a total of 3002 participants randomised across 74 comparisons. We synthesise the data into three broad comparisons, and we consider these findings below as they relate to SLT versus no SLT, SLT versus social support, and one type of SLT versus a different SLT approach.

SLT versus no SLT

Based on 27 trials involving 1620 participants, we found significant differences between the scores of participants who received SLT and those that did not. Specifically, these differences were evidenced in measures of functional communication, receptive language (including reading), and expressive language (including writing), all of which favoured the provision of SLT ( Table 1 ). However, significant differences were not evident across all measures. Sample sizes remain small, and there is some indication of one or two trials' highly significant findings impacting upon the meta‐analyses. We have profiled the available evidence relating to therapy follow‐up data from these trials which is (as yet) limited in the number of trials and contributing participants ( Table 2 ).

We observed notable statistical heterogeneity among some of the SLT versus no SLT comparisons (e.g. expressive language: general, I 2 = 76% and the severity of impairment comparison, I 2 = 93%). In addition, we also noted measures based on either the Aphasia Battery of Chinese or the Chinese Aphasia Measurement tools fell outside of the 95% CIs of the associated funnel plots. While we might expect that a proportion (5%) of the results would be observed in this manner by chance, the frequency of the observation is above what we might expect to occur by chance alone. There are a number of possible explanations for these observations. The Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions suggests consideration of several possible sources of heterogeneity and asymmetry in funnel plots. Selection bias, poor methodological quality, true heterogeneity, artefact, or chance may have contributed ( Higgins 2011 ). Zhang 2007i , Zhang 2007ii and Zhao 2000 took place in China, where doctors and nurses deliver SLT interventions rather than professional therapists, as may be the case for the other trials in this meta‐analysis. Other aspects of stroke care may also have differed. We also have limited information on the study populations included within these trials, particularly from the Zhao 2000 trial, which does not report time post onset, patient demographics or aphasia severity. Information on the methodological design is also very limited, particularly in relation to the randomisation, concealment of allocation, and blinding of outcome assessors.

Abstracts of these Chinese trials were published in English, thus the contribution of professional translators unfamiliar with some of the technical specifications or methodological terms used in health services research may have had an impact. Within these articles, authors report that the participants within the trials were randomised to the different interventions. Thus, they were eligible for inclusion within this review. Our attempts to access trial details similarly required translation of the trial reports, which may also have introduced some discrepancies between the original meaning of the trialists and our translations. The exact nature of the randomisation processes is unclear, and if we look at the sample sizes of the groups (within Zhao 2000 for example), there is considerable imbalance between the numbers that received SLT (98 participants) and those that did not (40 participants) raising further questions regarding the randomisation processes employed within some studies. Information about some of the tools (and subtests of these tools) used within these trials (such as the Aphasia Battery of Chinese or the Chinese Aphasia Measurement) were unavailable to us. Our pooling of data relating to 'verbal presentation' may not exactly capture the same aspects of verbal expression as other tools within our meta‐analysis. Similarly, issues relating to the tools' validity and reliability were unavailable. Despite our best efforts, we failed to communicate with the Zhang 2007i , Zhang 2007ii or Zhao 2000 trialists to confirm or obtain clarification on any of these issues. In the meantime, the reader should be mindful of the inconsistencies observed within our meta‐analyses when interpreting the findings from this section of the review. We look forward to the availability of the currently ongoing trials in the future, which will further inform this comparison.

SLT versus social support

A total of 447 people were randomised across nine trials to receive either SLT or a social support and stimulation intervention. While we observed some significant differences in the performance of the groups on various measures of language performance (favouring those that received social support), most findings were derived from one small trial of 18 participants ( Lincoln 1982iii ). The more recent, large, rigorously conducted ACTNoW 2011 trial found no evidence of a significant difference between the functional language skills of the two groups. Additional data are required to confirm whether social support and stimulation provides benefits to some aspects of participants' language skills and on measures of severity of aphasia impairment. In contrast, other significant differences observed (informed by five trials in this comparison) showed that significantly more participants allocated to social support and stimulation interventions dropped out or did not adhere to the intervention when compared with the participants allocated to SLT. While social support and stimulation may be beneficial to some aspects of participants' language performance, we need additional evidence to support this. Where social support and stimulation interventions are being delivered, practitioners should provide clear explanation of the nature and purpose of the support to individuals to reduce any dissatisfaction that might be experienced and which may have resulted in the significantly higher dropout rates observed.

SLT A versus SLT B

Thirty‐eight trials, involving 1242 participants, compared two different types of SLT. This section of the review has grown considerably since our 2012 review, and thus we were able to compare different therapy regimens (differing in intensity, dosage and duration), different therapy delivery models (group, one‐to‐one, volunteer, computer facilitated) and different theoretical approaches (e.g. constraint‐induced therapy, semantic therapy). In general, comparisons continue to be based on a small number of trials involving few participants (typically less than 20). Additional data are still required to further inform these comparisons. The effectiveness of popular SLT approaches such as functional SLT or constraint‐induced aphasia therapy were informed by a small number of trials and did not demonstrate evidence of the effectiveness of these approaches over conventional SLT approaches. Some of the data from these trials were unavailable to this review, so we could not include them in the meta‐analyses. While we hope that these data may become available in the future, we are also looking forward to the availability of data from ongoing trials, which will further inform these comparisons.

There was little evidence of any difference between group SLT and one‐to‐one SLT, computer‐facilitated, or volunteer‐facilitated SLT versus professional SLT, although these comparisons were based on limited numbers of trials involving small numbers of participants. The available evidence, however, indicates there is no evidence of a difference in the provision of SLT interventions facilitated by volunteers or computers (under the direction of professional therapists and with appropriate access to relevant therapy materials and therapeutic intervention plans) compared with direct therapy provision by a professional therapist.

We identified eight trials that compared high‐intensity to low‐intensity SLT. There was some indication of benefits to participants' functional language skills based on the synthesis of data from two trials. Based on pooled data from five different trials, we also observed improvements in severity of aphasia following high‐intensity SLT. However, the number of participants dropping out from the high‐intensity SLT groups was significantly higher than in the low‐intensity SLT groups, confounding the results and suggesting that high‐intensity approaches to therapy (4 to 15 hours per week) may not be suited to all patients. Following Cochrane editorial review, we considered the timing of participant recruitment to the contributing trials as a possible factor to the tolerance of high‐intensity interventions. The trials contributing to this analyses recruited with two weeks (two RCTs), one to three months (four RCTs), and between two to eight years (two RCTs) after onset of aphasia. Effects were no longer observed in a post hoc comparison of trials recruiting participants several years after stroke (nor did those trials report any dropouts). The beneficial effect remained for trials that recruited within three months of aphasia onset, although the significantly higher dropouts from the high‐intensity groups came only from those trials. Similarly, we observed some indication of a benefit of a high dose of therapy (between 60 and 208 hours of therapy) compared with a lower dose of SLT (ranging from 5 to 78 hours), but significant differences were based on findings from a single trial with small numbers of participants. However, where trial data overlapped, as in the number of trial dropouts reported by three trials, the participants who received the lower dose of therapy were less likely to drop out than those that received the higher dose.

It is possible that the timing of an intervention after stroke may be an important factor in both the effectiveness of and tolerance to specific intervention approaches. There are possible interactions between specific individual, aphasia and stroke profiles and the characteristics of complex SLT interventions that vary by intervention regimen, delivery model, and theoretical approach. Exploration of these issues is not suited to Cochrane review methodologies. Instead a large, international, multidisciplinary collaboration of aphasia researchers is aiming to examine such aspects through the RELEASE project.

Overall completeness and applicability of evidence

We identified a substantial number of trials of relevance to our review; most were eligible for inclusion. Across the included trials there was a lack of comprehensive data collection, a wide range of outcome tools employed, and disappointingly inadequate reporting of outcome measures. Many of the trialists generously shared unpublished data and supplementary information to enable accurate representation of their trial in this review. We are very grateful for their time and efforts to provide this information.

Within the review, just over half of the trials described measuring receptive (N = 45) and expressive language skills (N = 56), but not all reported suitable data in a published format that permitted inclusion within this review. We were able to include most trials that described measures of receptive language (67%; N = 30/45) and most expressive language measures (66%; N = 37/56). Forty‐seven trials evaluated the severity of participants' aphasia impairment, and we included suitable data from 29 trials. Similarly, while five trials reported measuring economic outcomes, only data from two were available. Many trials measured participants' functional and psychosocial outcomes, measures that are probably most closely aligned to the patients' sense of recovery and return to 'normal'. From the total of 74 randomised comparisons, more than half (N = 44) described measuring changes in functional communication and of these, most (N = 33/44) reported data that could be included within the meta‐analyses. Few trials measured psychosocial outcomes (N = 8) with five reporting (or providing) data suitable for inclusion within the review.

The degree to which the models of conventional SLT employed within the trials are reflective of therapists' current practice should be carefully considered across individual treatments in terms of the frequency, duration, and the extent of therapeutic intervention. To this end, we employed the TIDieR Checklist to support full data extraction of the SLT interventions within the trials ( Hoffmann 2014 ). In this way, the reader has access to a more comprehensive overview of the interventions being compared in the Characteristics of included studies table. Participants came from across a wide age range and were experiencing a range of aphasia impairments. However, the length of time since participants' stroke raises questions of how clinically relevant some recruitment parameters were to an SLT clinical population.

Less than a fifth (N = 13; 18%) of the included trials recruited participants within the first month following their stroke (a participant group of high clinical relevance) and only four of these recruited participants within the first week after their stroke ( Laska 2011 ; Mattioli 2014 ; VERSE I ; VERSE II ). Most recruited participants more than one month, and in some cases many years following their stroke (N = 49), or they did not report the time post onset (N = 12; FUATAC ; SEMaFORE ; Smith 1981i ; Smith 1981ii ; Smith 1981iii ; Szaflarski 2014 ; Wu 2004 ; Xie 2002 ; Yao 2005i ; Yao 2005ii ; Yao 2005iii ; Zhao 2000 ). Recruitment procedures involving participants up to 29 years after the onset of their aphasia are of limited application to either a clinical or treatment evaluation setting and raise the question of whether such inclusion criteria are apt to demonstrate effectiveness of an SLT intervention.

Our 2016 update adds a significant amount of data and so, together with continually improving systematic review and reporting methodologies, we are in a better position to draw conclusions regarding the effectiveness of SLT for aphasia following stroke. This review included a total of 74 randomised comparisons involving data from 3002 individual patients.

Methods of random sequence generation and concealment of allocation were considered adequate in 35 and 25 trials, respectively ( Figure 2 ; Figure 3 ). The randomisation methodology for the remaining trials had been inadequately described, so it was not possible to judge the quality. Similarly, only seven trials reported information on allocation concealment. The lack of description and detail does not necessarily mean inadequate procedures were in place but rather a lack of reporting of this detail ( Soares 2004 ). The prevalence of good methodology in relation to blinding of outcome assessors supports this interpretation, as more than half of the trials within the review (N = 43) described adequate blinding procedures. We only considered 11 to have inadequately blinded assessors, while 20 provided too little detail to make a judgement.

Half of the trials in this review (N = 36, 49%) were published before the CONSORT statement (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) ( Altman 2001 ; Moher 2001 ). Disappointingly, of the 38 trials published from 2005 (and after the implementation of the CONSORT statement) only 25 (66%) reported adequate methods of generating the randomisation sequence, and only 19 (50%) reported adequate methods of concealing allocation. Of the 20 that failed to adhere to the CONSORT statement ( B.A.Bar 2011i ; B.A.Bar 2011ii ; Conklyn 2012 ; Crosson 2014 ; FUATAC ; Laska 2011 ; Liu 2006a ; Mattioli 2014 ; Meinzer 2007 ; ORLA 2006 ; ORLA 2010 ; Rochon 2005 ; Smania 2006 ; Szaflarski 2014 ; Wu 2013 ; Yao 2005i ; Yao 2005ii ; Yao 2005iii ; Zhang 2007i ; Zhang 2007ii ), seven were published in Chinese medicine or nursing journals, and three were based on an abstract or short report of a full trial ( FUATAC ; ORLA 2006 ; Szaflarski 2014 ). It is essential that future trial reports adhere to these internationally accepted standards of trial reporting.

Twelve trials reported an a priori power size calculation, which is reflected in the small numbers of randomised participants across the trials included in the review ( ACTNoW 2011 ; B.A.Bar 2011i ; Doesborgh 2004 ; Laska 2011 ; MIT 2014i ; MIT 2014ii ; NARNIA 2013 ; RATS ; RATS‐2 ; SP‐I‐RiT ; Varley 2016i ; Varley 2016ii ). Nine randomised 10 or fewer participants; 43 randomised up to 50 participants; 16 randomised between 51 and 100 participants; two randomised over 100 participants and only four involved 150 individuals or more. The randomisation of such relatively small numbers of participants reduces the power of the statistical analyses, raises questions of the reliability of findings and (given the complexity of various aphasia impairments) causes difficulties in ensuring the comparability of the groups at baseline. Fifteen of the included trials had groups that significantly differed at baseline, and group comparability was unclear in another 10 randomised comparisons.

Despite these reporting and methodological limitations, we have synthesised a large number of trials that address the effectiveness of SLT for aphasia following stroke across a number of outcome measures. Across these measures, there is evidence of the effectiveness of SLT for people with aphasia when compared with no therapy provision. While the consistency in the direction of results observed in the previous version of this review remains following the inclusion of additional trial data, many of the significant differences between pooled data from patients that received SLT and those that did not include data from a single three‐armed trial ( Zhang 2007i ; Zhang 2007ii ). Caution is required in interpreting this trial evidence, as the randomisation procedure, concealment of allocation, blinding, and even details of the SLT intervention evaluated (contents, duration, frequency, intensity) are unclear.

With at least 18 additional trials of relevance to this review currently ongoing or about to report, the picture based on the current evidence for SLT for aphasia following stroke will develop further over time. We can be confident that with the availability of well‐conducted and reported trials, the evidence will continue to strengthen, providing more indications of the effectiveness of specific approaches to SLT.

Thirty‐one of the 74 trials in this review included all randomised participants in their final analyses. The remaining 43 trials lost participants during the treatment or follow‐up phases, but only eleven employed an ITT analysis. In some cases large proportions of participants withdrew from some interventions, and at times this appeared to be linked to the intervention itself, with significantly more participants withdrawing from both intensive SLT and social support interventions than from comparator SLT interventions. Similarly, there was evidence of significantly fewer people adhering to their allocated intervention when that intervention was a social support intervention and a trend towards this when the intervention was a high‐intensity SLT.

Potential biases in the review process

Within this review, we expanded the 2012 search strategy and conducted a comprehensive search for high quality trials that evaluated the effectiveness of SLT for aphasia following stroke. While we are confident we have identified most published trials of relevance to the review, it is still possible that despite our efforts, we may be unaware of additional unpublished work. Our search strategy and study selection criteria were agreed in advance and applied to all identified trials. Our data extraction processes were completed independently and then compared. Whenever possible, we extracted all relevant data and sought missing data directly from the trialists for inclusion within the review. We considered it appropriate to include cross‐over data within our review given the nature of the comparisons, the points at which the data were extracted and, in some cases, the availability of individual patient data.

This review has been informed by the availability of individual patient data (N = 323). In three trials the individual data were presented within the associated publications, while for the remaining 10 trials we are very grateful to the trialists for access to their unpublished data, facilitating inclusion of their trial data within the review. In addition, other trialists generously contributed the relevant summary values thus permitting the full inclusion of important trials from this field within the meta‐analyses (e.g. Wertz 1986i ; Wertz 1986ii ; Wertz 1986iii ). However, there still remain a number of other relevant trials that could not be fully included.

Agreements and disagreements with other studies or reviews

One of the first reviews in this area was Robey 1994 , which included 21 published studies (restricted to English language but not to RCTs). The reviewers identified at least 19 more studies that they were unable to include because of the manner in which the data had been reported. They concluded that the provision of SLT in the acute stages of aphasia following stroke was twice as effective as natural recovery patterns. Delayed therapy had a smaller, though still evident, impact. The authors called for better reporting of data and the use of large sample sizes. This team later updated their review, employing the same methodologies and including 55 studies that focused specifically on the amount and type of SLT intervention and its impact on the severity and type of aphasia ( Robey 1998a ). Again, they concluded that SLT was effective, particularly SLT in the acute stages following stroke and if two or more hours of therapy were provided each week. However, they again did not have access to all the relevant data, and they excluded some key trials, such as Wertz 1986 .

Bhogal 2003 reviewed 10 English language publications of controlled trials from a MEDLINE search (1975 to 2002) and associated references. They found that intensive SLT delivered significant treatment effects (when at least nine hours per week were delivered) and that studies that failed to demonstrate a treatment effect had only provided about two hours of SLT per week. The total duration of SLT provision was also negatively correlated with language outcomes. Cherney 2008 also reviewed 10 English language publications (1990 to 2006; 15 electronic databases; not all RCTs) and found modest evidence for intensive SLT and benefits of constraint‐induced aphasia therapy.

In contrast, Moss 2006 reviewed 23 single patient reports involving the provision by a therapist on a one‐to‐one basis of SLT that targeted spoken output or auditory comprehension in 57 participants identified following a systematic search (1985 to 2003) of published or indexed work. They concluded that time since stroke (and aphasia onset) is not linked to the response to SLT though they indicate (based on their data) that response to SLT may decline eight years after stroke. However, the highly selective nature of participants in published single cases studies means that reviews based on such a population group are of questionable applicability to a general clinical population. Individuals (and their caregivers) within such reports are likely to be highly motivated, educated, dedicated, and reliable therapy participants ( Moss 2006 ).

Implications for practice

Our review presents evidence of the benefits of SLT for people with aphasia following stroke as measured by their functional communication, reading, comprehension, expressive language, and writing. While there is an overall consistency in the findings across all trials included in these analyses, some of our significant findings were dependent on data from a single trial with limited information on the nature of the SLT intervention and the quality of the trial. Thus, we must exercise some caution in interpreting these results. It is also of note that the SLT provided in the included trials could be considered to be at a high level of intensity over variable periods of time.

Based on a smaller number of trials, we also observed some indication of the benefits of high‐intensity approaches to SLT in relation to functional communication and severity of impairment. The intensity of the interventions varied, as did the duration of therapy input, but such high‐intensity approaches to SLT may not have suited all participants. Significantly more participants in the intensive groups dropped out from these trials than from the non‐intensive groups.

Similarly, one small trial indicated that social support and stimulation may be beneficial to some aspects of patients' language skills, but the findings were confounded by a significantly higher participant dropout from social support interventions than from SLT interventions.

There was insufficient evidence within this review to establish the effectiveness of one SLT theoretical approach over another, with little indication of a difference between group SLT versus one‐to‐one SLT, and computer‐mediated SLT versus therapist‐delivered SLT. Similarly, there was little indication of a difference in the effectiveness of SLT facilitated by a trained volunteer versus SLT delivered by a therapist. This is unsurprising, as the volunteers in these trials received specialist training, had access to therapy materials and in many cases were delivering therapy interventions designed and overseen by a professional therapist. This model of SLT treatment delivery is often used in the UK.

Implications for research

In the course of updating this review, we identified many ongoing trials and trials that are about to report findings. In this context of a rapidly developing evidence base, there will be a need to update the findings of this review once the results of these ongoing trials become available. As aphasia researchers, we need to continue to improve the quality of SLT trials conducted. It is in pursuit of this goal that the Collaboration of Aphasia Trialists has been established. Funded by the European COST Association, this international collaboration of multidisciplinary aphasia researchers seek to enhance the development, conduct, and reporting of aphasia research. Aphasia researchers, funders, reviewers, and editors should be encouraged to publish all findings from completed trials. Investigators should adhere to the recommendations of the CONSORT statement, thus ensuring that the quality of the trial is fully demonstrated in the published report ( Altman 2001 ; Moher 2001 ). In addition, the recent TIDieR guidelines seek to support better reporting of complex interventions such as SLT for aphasia and to ensure the transparency and transferability of research approaches into clinical practice ( Hoffmann 2014 ). These guidelines have also enhanced the description and profiling of included trial SLT interventions within our Characteristics of included studies table. Trialists should also provide full descriptions of the relevant statistical summary data (means and SDs of final value scores) thus allowing inclusion of their data within any subsequent relevant meta‐analyses. A priori sample size calculations should be employed, ensuring SLT trials are adequately powered to demonstrate differences. The challenge for SLT researchers and clinicians will be to design, develop, conduct, and support larger trials. It is essential for the success of these trials that the work is undertaken in a collaborative manner between patients, clinicians, and researchers. Standardised outcome measures should be employed to evaluate the impact of SLT on participants' functional communication, expressive and receptive language skills, and the severity of their aphasia. We welcome the work currently ongoing in the ROMA study to achieve international consensus on a minimum core data set for aphasia research.

Supported by UK NIHR funding, the RELEASE project is conducting a more detailed examination of the effectiveness of SLT and the interaction between specific individuals, aphasia and stroke profiles, therapy regimens, theoretical approaches, and delivery models. The internationally collaborative group of aphasia researchers is gathering individual patient data from across more than 50 pre‐existing aphasia research studies for the purposes of secondary data analyses, which will specifically examine many of the issues raised in this review. Additional expressions of interest in contribution of aphasia research data sets are welcome.

Our overall aim for future research should be to establish what is the optimum approach, frequency, duration of allocation, and format of SLT provision for specific patient groups.

Protocol first published: Issue 4, 1997 Review first published: Issue 4, 1999

Acknowledgements

We acknowledge Jenny Greener and Renata Whurr, authors of the original review, and the significant contribution the original review made to the field.

We thank Hazel Fraser for her comments and suggestions for this review and for providing us with relevant trials from the Cochrane Stroke Group's Trials Register, and Brenda Thomas for her help with developing the search strategy.

We thank the Cochrane Stroke Group editors and all those who commented on the draft version of this review update, in particular Peter Langhorne, Tammy Hoffmann, Leora Cherney, Valentina Assi, and Tam Watson.

We are grateful to the Chinese Cochrane Centre, Christine Versluis, Audrey Morrison, Theresa Ikegwuonu, Floortje Klijn, Bart Lamers, Pei‐Ling Choo, and Ying Man Law for translations.

We thank all the trialists who patiently responded to our queries, provided translations, and generously contributed unpublished data and additional information to this review.

Appendix 1. Assessments

Appendix 2. cochrane library databases.

Cochrane Library databases (CDSR, DARE, CENTRAL, HTA) from inception to 22 September 2015

#1 [mh aphasia]

#2 [mh ^"language disorders"] or [mh ^"speech disorders"] or [mh ^anomia]

#3 (aphasi* or dysphasi* or anomia or anomic):ti,ab

#4 ((speech or language* or linguistic or communicat*) near/5 (disorder* or impair* or problem* or dysfunction or difficult*)):ti,ab

#5 #1 or #2 or #3 or #4

#6 [mh aphasia/RH,TH] or [mh ^"language disorders"/RH,TH] or [mh ^"speech disorders"/RH,TH] or [mh ^anomia/RH,TH]

#7 [mh ^"speech‐language pathology"] or [mh "rehabilitation of speech and language disorders"]

#8 ((speech or language* or linguistic or aphasi* or dysphasi* or anomia or anomic) near/5 (therap* or train* or rehabilitat* or treat* or remediat* or intervention* or pathol*)):ti,ab

#9 (SLT or SLP):ti,ab

#10 (melodic next intonation next therap* or MIT):ti,ab

#11 #6 or #7 or #8 or #9 or #10

#12 #5 and #11

#13 (pediatric or paediatric or infant or infants or child or children* or childhood or neonat* or juvenile* or toddler*):ti

#14 ([mh ^child] or [mh ^"child, preschool"] or [mh ^"adult children"] or [mh ^adolescent] or [mh infant]) not [mh adult]

#15 #13 or #14

#16 #12 not #15

Appendix 3. MEDLINE search strategy

MEDLINE (Ovid) from 1946 to 22 September 2015

1. exp aphasia/

2. language disorders/ or speech disorders/ or anomia/

3. (aphasi$ or dysphasi$ or anomia or anomic).tw.

4. ((speech or language$ or linguistic or communicat$) adj5 (disorder$ or impair$ or problem$ or dysfunction or difficult$)).tw.

5. 1 or 2 or 3 or 4

6. exp aphasia/rh, th or language disorders/rh, th or speech disorders/rh, th or anomia/rh, th

7. speech‐language pathology/ or exp "rehabilitation of speech and language disorders"/

8. ((speech or language$ or linguistic or aphasi$ or dysphasi$ or anomia or anomic) adj5 (therap$ or train$ or rehabilitat$ or treat$ or remediat$ or intervention$ or pathol$)).tw.

9. (SLT or SLP).tw.

10. (melodic intonation therap$ or MIT).tw.

11. 6 or 7 or 8 or 9 or 10

12. Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic/

13. random allocation/

14. Controlled Clinical Trials as Topic/

15. control groups/

16. clinical trials as topic/ or clinical trials, phase i as topic/ or clinical trials, phase ii as topic/ or clinical trials, phase iii as topic/ or clinical trials, phase iv as topic/

17. double‐blind method/

18. single‐blind method/

19. Placebos/

20. placebo effect/

21. cross‐over studies/

22. randomized controlled trial.pt.

23. controlled clinical trial.pt.

24. (clinical trial or clinical trial phase i or clinical trial phase ii or clinical trial phase iii or clinical trial phase iv).pt.

25. (random$ or RCT or RCTs).tw.

26. (controlled adj5 (trial$ or stud$)).tw.

27. (clinical$ adj5 trial$).tw.

28. ((control or treatment or experiment$ or intervention) adj5 (group$ or subject$ or patient$)).tw.

29. (quasi‐random$ or quasi random$ or pseudo‐random$ or pseudo random$).tw.

30. ((control or experiment$ or conservative) adj5 (treatment or therapy or procedure or manage$)).tw.

31. ((singl$ or doubl$ or tripl$ or trebl$) adj5 (blind$ or mask$)).tw.

32. (cross‐over or cross over or crossover).tw.

33. (placebo$ or sham).tw.

34. trial.ti.

35. (assign$ or allocat$).tw.

36. controls.tw.

37. or/12‐36

38. 5 and 11 and 37

39. exp animals/ not humans.sh.

40. 38 not 39

41. (pediatric or paediatric or infant or infants or child or children$ or childhood or neonat$ or juvenile$ or toddler$).ti.

42. (child/ or child, preschool/ or adult children/ or adolescent/ or exp infant/) not exp adult/

43. 41 or 42

44. 40 not 43

Appendix 4. EMBASE search strategy

EMBASE (Ovid) from 1980 to 22 September 2015

1. exp aphasia/ or dysphasia/

2. language disability/ or speech disorder/

6. exp aphasia/rh, th, dm or dysphasia/rh, th, dm or language disability/rh, th, dm or speech disorder/rh, th, dm

7. exp speech rehabilitation/

12. Randomized Controlled Trial/ or "randomized controlled trial (topic)"/

13. Randomization/

14. Controlled clinical trial/ or "controlled clinical trial (topic)"/

15. control group/ or controlled study/

16. clinical trial/ or "clinical trial (topic)"/ or phase 1 clinical trial/ or phase 2 clinical trial/ or phase 3 clinical trial/ or phase 4 clinical trial/

17. Crossover Procedure/

18. Double Blind Procedure/

19. Single Blind Procedure/ or triple blind procedure/

20. placebo/ or placebo effect/

21. (random$ or RCT or RCTs).tw.

22. (controlled adj5 (trial$ or stud$)).tw.

23. (clinical$ adj5 trial$).tw.

24. ((control or treatment or experiment$ or intervention) adj5 (group$ or subject$ or patient$)).tw.

25. (quasi‐random$ or quasi random$ or pseudo‐random$ or pseudo random$).tw.

26. ((control or experiment$ or conservative) adj5 (treatment or therapy or procedure or manage$)).tw.

27. ((singl$ or doubl$ or tripl$ or trebl$) adj5 (blind$ or mask$)).tw.

28. (cross‐over or cross over or crossover).tw.

29. (placebo$ or sham).tw.

30. trial.ti.

31. (assign$ or allocat$).tw.

32. controls.tw.

33. or/12‐32

34. 5 and 11 and 33

35. (exp animals/ or exp invertebrate/ or animal experiment/ or animal model/ or animal tissue/ or animal cell/ or nonhuman/) not (human/ or normal human/ or human cell/)

36. 34 not 35

37. (paediatric or paediatric or infant or infants or child or children$ or childhood or neonate$ or juvenile$ or toddler$).it.

38. (child/ or juvenile/ or exp infant/ or preschool child/ or school child/ or toddler/) not (adult/ or aged/ or middle aged/ or young adult/)

39. 37 or 38

40. 36 not 39

Appendix 5. CINAHL search strategy

CINAHL (EBSCO) from 1982 to 22 September 2015

S1 .(MH "Aphasia+")

S2 .(MH "Speech Disorders") or (MH "Language Disorders") or (MH "Anomia")

S3 .TI ( aphasi* or dysphasi* or anomia or anomic ) OR AB ( aphasi* or dysphasi* or anomia or anomic )

S4 .TI ((speech or language* or linguistic or communicat*) N5 (disorder* or impair* or problem* or dysfunction or difficult*)) or AB ((speech or language* or linguistic or communicat*) N5 (disorder* or impair* or problem* or dysfunction or difficult*))

S5 .S1 OR S2 OR S3 OR S4

S6 .(MH "Aphasia+/RH/TH") or (MH "Speech Disorders/RH/TH ") or (MH "Language Disorders/RH/TH ") or (MH "Anomia/RH/TH ")

S7 ..(MH "Rehabilitation, Speech and Language") or (MH "Speech‐Language Pathologists") or (MH "Speech‐Language Pathology") or (MH "Speech Therapy+") or (MH "Language Therapy")

S8 .TI ((speech or language or linguistic or aphasi* or dysphasi* or anomia or anomic) N5 (therap* or train* or rehabilitat* or treat* or remediat* or intervention* or pathol*)) or AB ((speech or language or linguistic or aphasi* or dysphasi* or anomia or anomic) N5 (therap* or train* or rehabilitat* or treat* or remediat* or intervention* or pathol*))

S9 .TI (SLT or SLP) or AB (SLT or SLP)

S10 .TI (melodic intonation therap* or MIT) or AB (melodic intonation therap* or MIT)

S11 .S6 OR S7 OR S8 OR S9 OR S10

S12 .(MH "Randomized Controlled Trials") or (MH "Random Assignment") or (MH "Random Sample+")

S13 .(MH "Clinical Trials") or (MH "Intervention Trials") or (MH "Therapeutic Trials")

S14 .(MH "Double‐Blind Studies") or (MH "Single‐Blind Studies") or (MH "Triple‐Blind Studies")

S15 .(MH "Control (Research)") or (MH "Control Group") or (MH "Placebos") or (MH "Placebo Effect")

S16 .(MH "Crossover Design") OR (MH "Quasi‐Experimental Studies")

S17 .PT (clinical trial or randomized controlled trial)

S18 .TI (random* or RCT or RCTs) or AB (random* or RCT or RCTs)

S19 .TI (controlled N5 (trial* or stud*)) or AB (controlled N5 (trial* or stud*))

S20 .TI (clinical* N5 trial*) or AB (clinical* N5 trial*)

S21 .TI ((control or treatment or experiment* or intervention) N5 (group* or subject* or patient*)) or AB ((control or treatment or experiment* or intervention) N5 (group* or subject* or patient*))

S22 .TI ((control or experiment* or conservative) N5 (treatment or therapy or procedure or manage*)) or AB ((control or experiment* or conservative) N5 (treatment or therapy or procedure or manage*))

S23 .TI ((singl* or doubl* or tripl* or trebl*) N5 (blind* or mask*)) or AB ((singl* or doubl* or tripl* or trebl*) N5 (blind* or mask*))

S24 .TI (cross‐over or cross over or crossover) or AB (cross‐over or cross over or crossover)

S25 .TI (placebo* or sham) or AB (placebo* or sham)

S26 .TI trial

S27 .TI (assign* or allocat*) or AB (assign* or allocat*)

S28 .TI controls or AB controls

S29 .TI (quasi‐random* or quasi random* or pseudo‐random* or pseudo random*) or AB (quasi‐random* or quasi random* or pseudo‐random* or pseudo random*)

S30 .S12 OR S13 OR S14 OR S15 OR S16 OR S17 OR S18 OR S19 OR S20 OR S21 OR S22 OR S23 OR S24 OR S25 OR S26 OR S27 OR S28 OR S29

S31 .S5 AND S11 AND S30

S32 .TI (pediatric or paediatric or infant or infants or child or children* or childhood or neonat* or juvenile* or toddler*)

S33 .((MH "Adolescence+") or (MH "Child+") or (MH "Infant+")) not (MH "Adult")

S34 .S32 OR S33

S35 .S31 not S34

Appendix 6. AMED search strategy

AMED (Ovid) from 1985 to 22 September 2015

1. aphasia/

2. language disorders/ or speech disorders/

6. speech language pathology/ or speech therapy/ or language therapy/

7. ((speech or language$ or linguistic or aphasi$ or dysphasi$ or anomia or anomic) adj5 (therap$ or train$ or rehabilitat$ or treat$ or remediat$ or intervention$ or pathol$)).tw.

8. (SLT or SLP).tw.

9. (melodic intonation therap$ or MIT).tw.

10. 6 or 7 or 8 or 9

11. clinical trials/ or randomized controlled trials/ or random allocation/

12. research design/ or comparative study/

13. double blind method/ or single blind method/

14. placebos/

15. (random$ or RCT or RCTs).tw.

16. (controlled adj5 (trial$ or stud$)).tw.

17. (clinical$ adj5 trial$).tw.

18. ((control or treatment or experiment$ or intervention) adj5 (group$ or subject$ or patient$)).tw.

19. (quasi‐random$ or quasi random$ or pseudo‐random$ or pseudo random$).tw.

20. ((control or experiment$ or conservative) adj5 (treatment or therapy or procedure or manage$)).tw.

21. ((singl$ or doubl$ or tripl$ or trebl$) adj5 (blind$ or mask$)).tw.

22. (cross‐over or cross over or crossover).tw.

23. (placebo$ or sham).tw.

24. trial.ti.

25. (assign$ or allocat$).tw.

26. controls.tw.

27. or/11‐26

28. 5 and 10 and 27

29. (pediatric or paediatric or infant or infants or child or children$ or childhood or neonat$ or juvenile$ or toddler$).ti.

30. (exp adolescent/ or exp child/ or exp infant/) not exp adult/

31. 29 or 30

32. 28 not 31

Appendix 7. Speech and language therapy approaches

Appendix 8. search strategies used in previous versions of this review.

For the original version of the review searches of MEDLINE (1966 to 1998) and CINAHL (1982 to 1998) were carried out using simple combinations of text words describing aphasia and SLT. We also searched major trials registers for ongoing trials including ClinicalTrials.gov (http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/), the Stroke Trials Registry (www.strokecenter.org/trials/) and Current Controlled Trials (www.controlled‐trials.com).

MEDLINE (Ovid) ‐ 2011 review

1. exp aphasia/ 2. language disorders/ or anomia/ 3. (aphasi$ or dysphasi$ or anomia or anomic).tw. 4. ((language or linguistic) adj5 (disorder$ or impair$ or problem$ or dysfunction)).tw. 5. 1 or 2 or 3 or 4 6. language therapy/ or speech therapy/ 7. Speech‐Language Pathology/ 8. ((speech or language or aphasia or dysphasia) adj5 (therap$ or train$ or rehabilitat$ or treat$ or remediat$ or pathol$)).tw. 9. remedial therap$.tw. 10. 6 or 7 or 8 or 9 11. 5 and 10 12. exp aphasia/rh, th or language disorders/rh, th or anomia/rh, th 13. 11 or 12 14. Randomized Controlled Trials/ 15. random allocation/ 16. Controlled Clinical Trials/ 17. control groups/ 18. clinical trials/ 19. double‐blind method/ 20. single‐blind method/ 21. Multicenter Studies/ 22. Therapies, Investigational/ 23. Research Design/ 24. Program Evaluation/ 25. evaluation studies/ 26. randomized controlled trial.pt. 27. controlled clinical trial.pt. 28. clinical trial.pt. 29. multicenter study.pt. 30. evaluation studies.pt. 31. random$.tw. 32. (controlled adj5 (trial$ or stud$)).tw. 33. (clinical$ adj5 trial$).tw. 34. ((control or treatment or experiment$ or intervention) adj5 (group$ or subject$ or patient$)).tw. 35. (quasi‐random$ or quasi random$ or pseudo‐random$ or pseudo random$).tw. 36. ((multicenter or multicentre or therapeutic) adj5 (trial$ or stud$)).tw. 37. ((control or experiment$ or conservative) adj5 (treatment or therapy or procedure or manage$)).tw. 38. ((singl$ or doubl$ or tripl$ or trebl$) adj5 (blind$ or mask$)).tw. 39. (coin adj5 (flip or flipped or toss$)).tw. 40. latin square.tw. 41. versus.tw. 42. (assign$ or alternate or allocat$ or counterbalance$ or multiple baseline).tw. 43. controls.tw. 44. or/14‐43 45. 13 and 44 46. child$.ti. 47. 45 not 46

EBSCO Search Strategy ‐ 2011 review

S44 S42 not S43 S43 TI child* S42 S18 and S41 S41 S19 or S20 or S21 or S22 or S23 or S24 or S25 or S26 or S27 or S28 or S29 or S32 or S33 or S36 or S37 or S40 S40 S38 and S39 S39 TI ( group* or subject* or patient* ) or AB ( group* or subject* or patient* ) S38 TI ( control or treatment or experiment* or intervention ) or AB ( control or treatment or experiment* or intervention ) S37 TI ( assign* or alternate or allocat* or counterbalance* or multiple baseline* or ABAB design* ) or AB ( assign* or alternate or allocat* or counterbalance* or multiple baseline* or ABAB design* ) S36 S34 and S35 S35 TI trial* or AB trial* S34 TI ( clin* or intervention* or compar* or experiment* or therapeutic ) or AB ( clin* or intervention* or compar* or experiment* or therapeutic ) S33 TI ( cross?over or control* or factorial or sham ) or AB ( cross?over or control* or factorial or sham ) S32 S30 and S31 S31 TI ( blind* or mask* ) or AB ( blind* or mask* ) S30 TI ( singl* or doubl* or tripl* or trebl* ) or AB ( singl* or doubl* or tripl* or trebl* ) S29 TI random* or AB random* S28 PT clinical trial S27 (MH "Clinical Research") OR (MH "Clinical Nursing Research") S26 (MH "Nonrandomized Trials") OR (MH "Study Design") OR (MH "Community Trials") OR (MH "One‐Shot Case Study") OR (MH "Experimental Studies") OR (MH "Pretest‐Posttest Design") OR (MH "Solomon Four‐Group Design") OR (MH "Static Group Comparison") S25 (MH "Quasi‐Experimental Studies") S24 (MH "Factorial Design") S23 (MH "Control (Research)") OR (MH "Control Group") S22 (MH "Comparative Studies") S21 (MH "Clinical Trials+") S20 (MH "Crossover Design") S19 (MH "Random Sample") OR (MH "Random Assignment") S18 S16 or S17 S17 (MH "Language Disorders/RH/TH") OR (MH "Aphasia/RH/TH") OR (MH "Aphasia, Broca/RH/TH") OR (MH "Aphasia, Wernicke/RH/TH") S16 S7 and S15 S15 S8 or S9 or S10 or S11 or S14 S14 S12 and S13 S13 TI ( therap* or train* or rehabilitat* or treat* or pathol* ) or AB ( therap* or train* or rehabilitat* or treat* or pathol* ) S12 TI ( speech or language or aphasia or dysphasia ) or AB ( speech or language or aphasia or dysphasia ) S11 (MH "Speech‐Language Pathologists") S10 (MH "Communication Skills Training") S9 (MH "Speech‐Language Pathology") S8 (MH "Rehabilitation, Speech and Language") OR (MH "Alternative and Augmentative Communication") OR (MH "Language Therapy") OR (MH "Speech, Alaryngeal+") OR (MH "Speech Therapy") S7 S1 or S2 or S3 or S6 S6 S4 and S5 S5 TI ( disorder* or impair* or problem* or dysfunction ) or AB ( disorder* or impair* or problem* or dysfunction ) S4 TI ( language or linguistic ) or AB ( language or linguistic ) S3 TI ( aphasi* or dysphasi* or anomia or anomic ) or AB ( aphasi* or dysphasi* or anomia or anomic ) S2 (MH "Language Disorders") S1 (MH "Aphasia") OR (MH "Aphasia, Broca") OR (MH "Aphasia, Wernicke")

New search for studies and content updated (conclusions changed)

Data and analyses

Comparison 1.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nCD000425-CMP-001-15.jpg

Comparison 1 SLT versus no SLT, Outcome 15 Adherence to allocated intervention.

Comparison 2

Comparison 3, comparison 4.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nCD000425-CMP-004-11.jpg

Comparison 4 High‐ versus low‐intensity SLT, Outcome 11 Adherence to allocated intervention.

Comparison 5

Comparison 6, comparison 7, comparison 8, comparison 9.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nCD000425-CMP-009-04.jpg

Comparison 9 Early versus delayed SLT, Outcome 4 Expressive language: written.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nCD000425-CMP-009-05.jpg

Comparison 9 Early versus delayed SLT, Outcome 5 Expressive language: repetition.

Comparison 10

Comparison 11, comparison 12, comparison 13, comparison 14, comparison 15, comparison 16, comparison 17, comparison 18, comparison 19, comparison 20.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nCD000425-CMP-020-02.jpg

Comparison 20 SLT with gestural adjunct versus SLT, Outcome 2 Expressive language.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nCD000425-CMP-020-03.jpg

Comparison 20 SLT with gestural adjunct versus SLT, Outcome 3 Severity of impairment: Aphasia Battery Score.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nCD000425-CMP-020-04.jpg

Comparison 20 SLT with gestural adjunct versus SLT, Outcome 4 Functional communication (follow‐up).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nCD000425-CMP-020-05.jpg

Comparison 20 SLT with gestural adjunct versus SLT, Outcome 5 Expressive language: (follow‐up).

Comparison 21

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nCD000425-CMP-021-02.jpg

Comparison 21 Melodic intonation therapy versus other SLT, Outcome 2 Expressive language: naming.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nCD000425-CMP-021-03.jpg

Comparison 21 Melodic intonation therapy versus other SLT, Outcome 3 Expressive language: repetition.

Comparison 22

Comparison 23.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nCD000425-CMP-023-02.jpg

Comparison 23 Operant training SLT versus conventional SLT, Outcome 2 Receptive language: other.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nCD000425-CMP-023-03.jpg

Comparison 23 Operant training SLT versus conventional SLT, Outcome 3 Expressive language: spoken.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nCD000425-CMP-023-04.jpg

Comparison 23 Operant training SLT versus conventional SLT, Outcome 4 Expressive language: written.

Comparison 24

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nCD000425-CMP-024-02.jpg

Comparison 24 Verb comprehension SLT versus preposition comprehension SLT, Outcome 2 Receptive language: reading.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nCD000425-CMP-024-03.jpg

Comparison 24 Verb comprehension SLT versus preposition comprehension SLT, Outcome 3 Expressive language.

Comparison 25

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nCD000425-CMP-025-02.jpg

Comparison 25 Discourse therapy versus conventional therapy, Outcome 2 Receptive language: word comprehension.

Comparison 26

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nCD000425-CMP-026-02.jpg

Comparison 26 'Task Specific' production versus conventional therapy, Outcome 2 Expressive language: spoken sentence.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nCD000425-CMP-026-03.jpg

Comparison 26 'Task Specific' production versus conventional therapy, Outcome 3 Expressive language: naming.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nCD000425-CMP-026-04.jpg

Comparison 26 'Task Specific' production versus conventional therapy, Outcome 4 Expressive language: naming (follow‐up).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nCD000425-CMP-026-05.jpg

Comparison 26 'Task Specific' production versus conventional therapy, Outcome 5 Expressive language: spoken sentence.

Comparison 27

Comparison 28.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nCD000425-CMP-028-02.jpg

Comparison 28 Auditory comprehension SLT versus conventional SLT, Outcome 2 Receptive language: word comprehension.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nCD000425-CMP-028-03.jpg

Comparison 28 Auditory comprehension SLT versus conventional SLT, Outcome 3 Receptive language: other auditory comprehension.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nCD000425-CMP-028-04.jpg

Comparison 28 Auditory comprehension SLT versus conventional SLT, Outcome 4 Receptive language: auditory comprehension (treated items).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nCD000425-CMP-028-05.jpg

Comparison 28 Auditory comprehension SLT versus conventional SLT, Outcome 5 Receptive language: reading comprehension.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nCD000425-CMP-028-06.jpg

Comparison 28 Auditory comprehension SLT versus conventional SLT, Outcome 6 Expressive language: naming.

Comparison 29

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nCD000425-CMP-029-02.jpg

Comparison 29 FIlmed programme instruction versus conventional SLT, Outcome 2 Receptive language: reading comprehension.

Characteristics of studies

Characteristics of included studies [ordered by study id].

AAC : Alternative and Augmentative Communication; AAT : Aachen Aphasia Test; ACTS : Auditory Comprehension Test for Sentences; ADL : activities of daily living; AMERIND :American Indian, a general communication system; ANELT : Amsterdam‐Nijmegen Everyday Language Test; AQ : Aphasia Quotient; BDAE : Boston Diagnostic Aphasia Examination; CADL :Communication Abilities of Daily Living; CETI : Communicative Effectiveness Index; CFCP : Chinese Functional Communication Profile; CHSPT : Caplan and Hanna Sentence Production Test; CIAT : constraint‐induced aphasia therapy; CMA : Canadian Medical Association; CRRCAE : Chinese Rehabilitation Research Centre Aphasia Examination; CT : computerised tomography; CVA : cerebrovascular accident; DA : discourse analysis; dB : decibels; FAST : Frenchay Aphasia Screening Test; FCP : FunctionalCommunication Profile; FE scale : Functional‐Expression scale; GCS : Glasgow coma scale; GHQ : general health questionnaire; GP : general practitioner; ITT : intention‐to‐treat; MAACL : Multiple Adjective AffectCheck‐List; MCA : middle cerebral artery; MDT : multidisciplinary team; MRI : magnetic resonance imaging; MTDDA : Minnesota Test for the Differential Diagnosis of Aphasia; NGA : Norsk Grunntest for Afasi; NHP : Nottingham Health Profile; NHS : National Health Service (UK); NIHSS : National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale; ONT : Object Naming Test; ORLA : Oral Reading for Language in Aphasia; PACE : Promoting Aphasics' Communicative Effectiveness; PALPA : Psycholinguistic Assessments of Language Processing in Aphasia; PCB : Philidelphia Comprehension Battery; Peabody PVT : Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test; PICA : Porch Index of Communicative Abilities; RCBA : Reading Comprehension Battery for Aphasia; RCT : randomised controlled trial; SAQolL : stroke and aphasia quality of life scale; SAT : Semantic Association Test; SD : standard deviation; SLT : speech and language therapy; SPICA : Shortened Porch Index of Communicative Abilities; STACDAP : Systematic Therapy for Auditory Comprehension Disorders in Aphasic Patients; TACS : Texas Aphasia Contrastive‐Language Series; TOMs : Therapy Outcomes Measures; WAB : Western Aphasia Battery; WAIS : Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale.

Characteristics of excluded studies [ordered by study ID]

RCT : randomised controlled trial; SLT : speech and language therapy; TBI : traumatic brian injury.

Characteristics of studies awaiting assessment [ordered by study ID]

AAT : Aachen Aphasia Test; SLT : speech and language therapy; WAB : Western Aphasia Battery.

Characteristics of ongoing studies [ordered by study ID]

ABC : Aphasia Battery in Chinese; ADL : activities of daily living; ANELT : Amsterdam‐Nijmegen Everyday Language Test; AQ : Aphasia Quotient; BDAE : Boston Diagnostic Aphasia Examination; BNT : Boston Naming Test; CAT : Comprehensive Aphasia Test; CCRE : Centre for Clinical Research Excellence; CETI : Communicative Effectiveness Index; CIAT : constraint‐induced aphasia therapy; CIU : correct information unit; CT : computerised tomography; CVA : cerebrovascular accident; DTI : diffusion tensor imaging; FCP : Functional Communication Profile; fMRI : functional magnetic resonance imaging; NHS : National Health Service (UK); MCA : middle cerebral artery; MIT : melodic intonation therapy; MRI : magnetic resonance imaging; PALPA : Psycholinguistic Assessments of Language Processing in Aphasia; PACE : Promoting Aphasics' Communicative Effectiveness therapy; PGI : Patient Global Impression; RCT : randomised controlled trial; SAH : subarachnoid haemorrhage; SAQoL : Stroke and Aphasia Quality of Life Scale; SAT : Semantic Association Test; SDH : subdural haematoma; SLT : speech and language therapy; TIA : transient ischaemic attack; TOMs : Therapy Outcome Measures; UAT : unconstrained aphasia therapy; WAB : Western Aphasia Battery; WBIC : Wolfson Brain Imaging Centre.

Differences between protocol and review

Amendments to the original 1999 review.

Following close inspection of the original review and detailed discussion among this review team ( Greener 1999 ), we made adjustments to the review, many of which reflect changes in Cochrane procedures, review methodologies, and style and structure in the time since the publication of the original review. These amendments were ratified by the Cochrane Stroke Group Editorial Board on 23 November 2006.

We updated the Background section to include a definition of SLT and aphasia, and to reflect current approaches and rationale to SLT interventions and outcomes.

We amended the Objectives to a single statement according to the standard format of Cochrane reviews; that is, to assess the effects of SLT interventions for aphasia following stroke.

It was unclear whether or not quasi‐randomised controlled trials were included in the original review. We have excluded quasi‐randomised trials.

We compressed the Types of interventions into three broad categories: SLT versus no SLT intervention, SLT versus social support or stimulation, and SLT intervention A versus SLT intervention B (where A and B refer to two different types of therapeutic interventions or approaches).

We refined the Types of outcome measures to a single primary outcome measure of functional communication. Secondary outcomes include other measures of communication (receptive or expressive language, or both), psychosocial outcomes, patient satisfaction with the intervention, number of participant dropouts for any reason, adherence to the allocated intervention, economic outcomes (such as cost to the patient, caregivers, families, health service, and society) and caregiver or family satisfaction. We extracted data relating to death, morbidity and cognitive skills in the original review, but on reflection, we did not consider these to be relevant indicators of the effectiveness of an SLT intervention, and we therefore excluded them from this update. The original review reported overall functional status (e.g. Barthel Index) as one of a number of primary outcomes. As described above, we focused on a single primary outcome (in line with the current review methodology).

Data extraction tool

For this 2016 version of the review, PC and MB created and piloted a new electronically based data extraction tool. MB and HK or PE had extracted data from trials included the 2012 review using a paper‐based tool.

Re‐running the original search strategy for the MEDLINE and CINAHL databases raised over 12.6 million references. Therefore, Brenda Thomas, the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Search Co‐ordinator, devised up‐to‐date search strategies. We handsearched the International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders (previously named the British Journal of Disorders of Communication , the European Journal of Disorders of Communication and the International Journal of Disorders of Communication) from 1969 to 2005. This journal has been indexed by MEDLINE since 2006 and was thus included in our electronic searches from this date.

The original 1999 review listed studies other than identified RCTs in the Characteristics of excluded studies table, including single case or case series studies. As there are a vast number of such studies, the updated table now only presents potentially relevant studies that appear to be randomised but which we excluded for other reasons (e.g. quasi‐randomised or where we could not extract aphasia‐specific data).

Comparisons

Mid‐trial outcome scores were included in the 1999 review. We have focused our reporting on postintervention and follow‐up scores. We have not included analyses of the number of participants who deteriorated on particular outcome measures.

Other amendments

As we were unable to obtain the extraction sheets for the trials included in the review (published in 1999), we cross‐checked the data extracted for the original review with the available published and unpublished data. We made some amendments regarding the exclusion of some studies and the categorisation of the methods of allocation concealment used in the included trials.

In the 2012 review update, we excluded quasi‐randomised studies, so we excluded one study that had contributed to the 1999 review ( Hartman 1987 ). In addition, on reviewing the data from another trial ( Kinsey 1986 ), we decided that the reported comparison was not a therapy intervention as such, but rather a comparison of task performance (computer‐based or with a therapist). We thus excluded this trial from subsequent reviews. The review team considered allocation concealment for one study to be 'inadequate' in the 1999 review ( MacKay 1988 ). We failed to get confirmation of the method of allocation from the authors, and therefore we amended the allocation for this trial to 'unclear'. The 1999 review included a matched control group of no SLT intervention for one trial ( Prins 1989 ). However, unlike the other groups in this trial, this group was not randomised, therefore we have excluded it from this update. Another study had been excluded from the original review on the grounds that it was not an RCT ( Shewan 1984 ). Discussion with the trialists has since revealed that it was, and we have now included it in the 2012 and 2016 reviews.The original 1999 review included outcomes relating to the impact of SLT on the emotional well‐being of family members ( Lincoln 1984a ). Such outcomes do not directly relate to the aims of this review, so we have not included these measures.

Information added to the 1999 review

Following an extensive search up to April 2009, we identified an additional 20 trials as suitable for inclusion in the review. The 2010 review included data from 30 trials involving 1840 randomised participants ( Kelly 2010 ).

Information added to the 2012 review

Following an extensive search from inception of the electronic databases up to July 2011, we identified an additional nine trials eligible for inclusion in the review. This 2012 review update now includes data from 39 trials involving 2518 randomised participants.

Information added to the 2016 review

Following a revised and extended search (incorporating additional electronic databases) from inception of the databases up to 22 September 2015, we identified an additional 18 trials (22 randomised comparisons) eligible for inclusion in the review. This 2016 review update now includes data from 57 completed trials (74 randomised comparisons) involving 3002 randomised participants.

Contributions of authors

MB designed the review, conducted the search, screened and retrieved references for inclusion and exclusion criteria, contacted relevant authors, obtained translations for non‐English publications, obtained unpublished data, extracted data from included trials, evaluated methodological quality, entered and analysed the data, interpreted the findings, and wrote the review.

HK conducted an early version of the search (1999 to 2009) and screened and retrieved references for inclusion and exclusion criteria, contacted relevant authors and academic institutions, obtained translations for non‐English publications, obtained unpublished data, extracted data from included trials, evaluated methodological quality, entered and analysed data, interpreted the findings, and contributed to the writing of the review.

JG provided statistical support for data extraction and analysis and commented on review drafts.

PE co‐authored the original review, contributed to the evaluation of the methodological quality and interpretation of certain studies, and commented on the updated review .

PC conducted the new search (for the 2015 review), screened and retrieved references for inclusion and exclusion criteria, obtained translations for non‐English publications, obtained unpublished data, extracted data from included trials, evaluated methodological quality, entered the data, interpreted the findings, and wrote the review.

Sources of support

Internal sources.

Nursing, Midwifery and Allied Health Professions Research Unit, UK.

External sources

Chief Scientist Office Scotland, UK.

Declarations of interest

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.

References to studies included in this review

Actnow 2011 {published and unpublished data}.

Bowen A. Assessing the effectiveness of communication therapy in the North West ‐ ACTNoW study . http://www.controlled‐trials.com/mrct/ukctrsearch.html (accessed 26 November 2014).
Bowen A, Hesketh A, Patchick E, Young A, Davies L, Vail A, et al. Clinical Effectiveness, Cost Effectiveness and Service Users' Perceptions of Early, Intensively‐Resourced Communication Therapy Following a Stroke, a Randomised Controlled Trial (The ACT NoW Study) . London: Health Technology Assessment, 2011. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Bowen A, Patchick E. Assessing the effectiveness of communication therapy in the North West ‐ the ACT NoW study: a work in progress. [Abstract OG01] . Proceedings of the 4th UK Stroke Forum Conference 1‐3 December 2009, SECC, Glasgow, UK . Wiley‐Blackwell, 2009.
Patchick E, Watkins C, Wilkinson M, Bowen A. Attention control within the ACTNoW randomized controlled trial: getting it right? . Clinical Rehabilitation 2010; 24 ( 958 ):958. [ Google Scholar ]
Young A, Gomersall T, Patchick E, Bowen A. The ACTNoW qualitative study: exploring the perspectives of people with aphasia or dysarthria who participated in the randomised controlled trial (RCT). [Abstract 114] . International Journal of Stroke 2010; 5 ( Suppl 3 ):59. [ Google Scholar ]

B.A.Bar 2011i {published and unpublished data}

Nobis‐Bosch R, Springer L, Radermacher I, Huber W. Supervised home training in aphasia: language learning in dialogues . Forum Logopadie 2010; 24 ( 5 ):6‐13. [ Google Scholar ]
Nobis‐Bosch R, Springer L, Radermacher I, Huber W. Supervised home training of dialogue skills in chronic aphasia: a randomized parallel group study . Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research 2011; 54 ( 4 ):1118‐36. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

B.A.Bar 2011ii {published and unpublished data}

Bakheit 2007 {published and unpublished data}.

Bakheit M, Shaw S, Barrett L, Wood J, Carrington S, Griffiths S, et al. A prospective, randomized, parallel group, controlled study of the effect of intensity of speech and language therapy on early recovery from poststroke aphasia . Clinical Rehabilitation 2007; 21 ( 10 ):885‐94. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

CACTUS 2013 {published and unpublished data}

Latimer NR, Dixon S, Palmer R. Cost‐utility of self‐managed computer therapy for people with aphasia . International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 2013; 29 ( 4 ):402‐9. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Palmer R, Enderby P, Cooper C, Latimer N, Julious S, Paterson G, et al. Computer therapy compared with usual care for people with long‐standing aphasia poststroke: a pilot randomized controlled trial . Stroke 2012; 43 ( 7 ):1904‐11. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Palmer R, Enderby P, Mortley J, Cooper C, Dixon S, Julious S, et al. Cost effectiveness of aphasia therapy compared with usual stimulation for people with long standing aphasia (CACTUS): results of a pilot study . International Journal of Stroke 2011; 6 ( Suppl 2 ):4. [ Google Scholar ]
Palmer R, Enderby P, Mortley J, Cooper C, Dixon S, Julious S, et al. Evaluating the cost effectiveness of computer therapy compared with usual stimulation for people with long standing aphasia: a feasibility study . Protocol April 2010.
Palmer R, Enderby P, Mortley J, Cooper C, Dixson S, Julious S, et al. Cost effectiveness of aphasia computer therapy compared with usual stimulation for people with longstanding aphasia: a feasibility study (CACTUS). [Abstract OG25] . Proceedings of the 4th UK Stroke Forum Conference 1‐3 December 2009, SECC, Glasgow, UK . Wiley‐Blackwell, 2009.
Palmer R, Paterson G. Do volunteers have a role in the workforce to support long term speech and language rehabilitation? . International Journal of Stroke 2013; 8 ( Suppl 3 ):32. [ Google Scholar ]
Palmer R, Paterson G, Delaney A, Hughes H, Enderby P. Independent speech and language practice with aphasia computer software is an acceptable alternative to face to face therapy in the long term post stroke . Stroke 2013; 44 ( 2 ):NS14. [ Google Scholar ]
Palmer R, Paterson G, Delany A. Have your say: engaging people with communication disorders in stroke research . Proceedings of the 5th UK Stroke Forum Conference 30 November‐2 December 2010 SECC, Glasgow, UK . Wiley‐Blackwell, 2010.

Conklyn 2012 {published data only}

Conklyn D, Novak E, Boissy A, Bethoux F, Chemali K. The effects of modified melodic intonation therapy on nonfluent aphasia: a pilot study . Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research 2012; 55 ( 5 ):1463‐71. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Crerar 1996 {published and unpublished data}

Crerar MA. A computer‐based microworld for the assessment and remediation of sentence processing deficits in aphasia . Unpublished PhD thesis. Napier University, Edinburgh. 1991. [ PubMed ]
Crerar MA, Ellis AW, Dean EC. Remediation of sentence processing deficits in aphasia using a computer‐based microworld . Brain and Language 1996; 52 ( 1 ):229‐75. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Crosson 2014 {unpublished data only}

Altmann LJ, Hazamy AA, Carvajal PJ, Benjamin M, Rosenbek JC, Crosson B. Delayed stimulis‐specific improvements in discourse following anomia treatment using an intentional gesture . Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research 2014; 57 ( 2 ):439‐54. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Benjamin ML, Towler S, Garcia A, Park H, Sudhyadhom A, Harnish S, et al. A behavioral manipulation engages right frontal cortex during aphasia therapy . Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair 2014; 28 ( 6 ):545‐53. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Crosson B. Treating intention in aphasia: neuroplastic substrates . https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00567242 (accessed 22 September 2015).
Crosson B, Fabrizio KS, Singletary F, Cato MA, Wierenga CE, Parkinson RB, et al. Treatment of naming in nonfluent aphasia through manipulation of intention and attention: a phase 1 comparison of two novel treatments . Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society 2007; 13 ( 4 ):582‐94. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

David 1982 {published and unpublished data}

David R, Enderby P, Bainton D. Response to Huber W, Poeck K, Springer L, Willmes K . Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry 1983; 46 ( 7 ):692‐3. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
David R, Enderby P, Bainton D. Response to Marshall RC, Golper LA . Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry 1983; 46 ( 7 ):689‐91. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
David R, Enderby P, Bainton D. Response to TR Pring . British Journal of Disorders of Communication 1983; 18 ( 2 ):73‐7. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
David R, Enderby P, Bainton D. Treatment of acquired aphasia: speech therapists and volunteers compared . Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry 1982; 45 ( 11 ):957‐61. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
David RM. A comparison of speech therapists and volunteers in the treatment of acquired aphasia . Unpublished thesis, University of London, UK. 1982.
David RM, Enderby P, Bainton D. Progress report on an evaluation of speech therapy for aphasia . British Journal of Disorders of Communication 1979; 14 ( 2 ):85‐8. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Enderby P. Proposed evaluation of speech therapy for acquired aphasia . British Journal of Disorders of Communication 1976; 11 ( 2 ):144‐8. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Denes 1996 {published and unpublished data}

Denes G, Perazzolo C, Piani A, Piccione F. Intensive versus regular speech therapy in global aphasia: a controlled study . Aphasiology 1996; 10 ( 4 ):385‐94. [ Google Scholar ]

Di Carlo 1980 {published data only (unpublished sought but not used)}

Carlo L. Language recovery in aphasia: effect of systematic filmed programmed instruction . Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 1980; 61 ( 1 ):41‐4. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Doesborgh 2004 {published and unpublished data}

Doesborgh SJC, Sandt‐Koenderman MWME, Dippel DWJ, Harskamp F, Koudstaal PJ, Visch‐Brink EG. Cues on request: the efficacy of Multicue, a computer program for word finding therapy . Aphasiology 2004; 18 ( 3 ):213‐22. [ Google Scholar ]

Drummond 1981 {unpublished data only}

Drummond SS, Rentschler GJ. The efficacy of gestural cueing in dysphasic word‐retrieval responses . Journal of Communication Disorders 1981; 14 ( 4 ):287‐98. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Elman 1999 {published data only (unpublished sought but not used)}

Elman RJ, Bernstein‐Ellis E. Psychosocial aspects of group communication treatment . Seminars in Speech and Language 1999; 20 ( 1 ):65‐72. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Elman RJ, Bernstein‐Ellis E. The efficacy of group communication treatment in adults with chronic aphasia . Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research 1999; 42 ( 2 ):411‐9. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

FUATAC {unpublished data only}

ISRCTN26390986. Forced Use Aphasia Therapy in the ACute phase (FUATAC) . http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN26390986 (accessed 22 September 2015).
Küst J, Kuhn D, Wadehn J, Karbe H. Communication oriented forced‐use therapy for aphasic patients [Kommunikationsorientierte forced‐use Therapie bei Aphasikern]. http://www.refonet.de/veranstaltungen/documents/05004Posterrefonetupdate2007.pdf (accessed 25 March 2012).

Hinckley 2001 {published and unpublished data}

Hinckley JJ, Patterson JP, Carr TH. Differential effects of context‐ and skill‐based treatment approaches: preliminary findings . Aphasiology 2001; 15 ( 5 ):463‐76. [ Google Scholar ]

Katz 1997i {published and unpublished data}

Katz RC, Wertz RT. Computerized hierarchical reading treatment in aphasia . Aphasiology 1992; 6 ( 2 ):165‐77. [ Google Scholar ]
Katz RC, Wertz RT. The efficacy of computer‐provided reading treatment of chronic aphasic adults . Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research 1997; 40 ( 3 ):493‐507. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Katz RC, Wertz RT, Lewis SM, Esparza C, Goldojarb MA. A comparison of computerized reading treatment, computer stimulation, and no treatment for aphasia . In: Prescott TE editor(s). Clinical Aphasiology . Vol. 19 , Austin, Texas: Pro‐Ed, 1991:243‐54. [ Google Scholar ]

Katz 1997ii {published and unpublished data}

Laska 2011 {published and unpublished data}.

Laska AC, Kahan T, Hellblom A, Murray V, Arbin M. A randomized controlled trial on very early speech and language therapy in acute stroke patients with aphasia . Cerebrovascular Diseases 2011; Vol. 1, issue (Suppl 1):66‐74. [DOI: 10.1159/000329835] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ]
Laska AC, Kahan T, Hellblom A, Murray V, Arbin M. A randomized controlled trial on very early speech and language therapy in patients with acute stroke and aphasia . Cerebrovascular Diseases 2010; 29 ( Suppl 2 ):Abst. 1. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Laska AC, Kahan T, Hellblom A, Murray V, Arbin M. Design and methods of a randomised controlled trial on early speech and language therapy in patients with acute stroke and aphasia . Topics in Stroke Rehabilitation 2008; 15 ( 3 ):256‐61. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Leal 1993 {published and unpublished data}

Ferro JM, Leal G, Farrajota L, Fonseca J, Guerreiro M, Castro‐Caldas A. Speech therapy or home training for stroke aphasics? . Journal of Neurology 1992; 239 ( Suppl 3 ):20. [ Google Scholar ]
Leal MG, Farrajota L, Fonseca J, Guerriero M, Castro‐Caldas A. The influence of speech therapy on the evolution of stroke aphasia . Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology 1993; 15 ( 3 ):399. [ Google Scholar ]
Leal MG, Farrajota L, Fonseca J, Santos ME, Guerriero M, Ferro JM, et al. The influence of speech therapy on the evolution of stroke aphasia . Unpublished report. Language Research Laboratory, Lisbon, Portugal, 1994.

Lincoln 1982i {published and unpublished data}

Lincoln NB. An Investigation of the Effectiveness of Language Retraining Methods with Aphasic Stroke Patients. [PhD thesis] . London, UK: University of London, 1980. [ Google Scholar ]
Lincoln NB, Pickersgill MJ, Hankey AI, Hilton CR. An evaluation of operant training and speech therapy in the language rehabilitation of moderate aphasics . Behavioural Psychotherapy 1982; 10 ( 2 ):162‐78. [ Google Scholar ]

Lincoln 1982ii {published and unpublished data}

Lincoln NB. An Investigation of the Effectiveness of Language Retraining Methods with Aphasic Stroke Patients. [PhD thesis] . 1980. [ Google Scholar ]

Lincoln 1982iii {published and unpublished data}

Lincoln 1984a {published and unpublished data}.

Berman A, Rowntree P, Smith L, Chambers C, Russell R, Chipperfield E, et al. Speech therapy for the stroke patient . The Lancet 1984; 2 ( 8394 ):104. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Howard D. Speech therapy for aphasic stroke patients . The Lancet 1984; 1 ( 8391 ):1413‐4. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Lendrem W, Lincoln NB. Spontaneous recovery of language in patients with aphasia between 4 and 34 weeks after stroke . Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry 1985; 48 ( 8 ):743‐8. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Lendrem W, McGuirk E, Lincoln N. Factors affecting language recovery in aphasic stroke patients receiving speech therapy . Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry 1988; Vol. 51, issue 8:1103‐10. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ]
Lincoln N, Mulley GP, Jones AC, McGuirk E, Lendrem W, Mitchell JRA. Effectiveness of speech therapy for aphasic stroke patients . The Lancet 1984; 1 ( 8388 ):1197‐200. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Lincoln NB. Psychological effects of speech therapy . International Journal of Rehabilitation Research 1985; Vol. 8, issue Suppl 4:22.
Lincoln NB, Jones AC, Mulley GP. Psychological effects of speech therapy . Journal of Psychosomatic Research 1985; 29 ( 5 ):467‐74. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Lincoln NB, McGuirk E. Speech therapy for the stroke patient . The Lancet 1984; 2 ( 8394 ):104. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Williams J, Wenden F, Jenkins DG. Speech therapy for aphasic stroke patients . The Lancet 1984; 1 ( 8391 ):1413. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Lincoln 1984b {published and unpublished data}

Lincoln NB. An Investigation of the Effectiveness of Language Retraining Methods with Aphasic Stroke Patients . [PhD thesis] 1980.
Lincoln NB, Pickersgill MJ. The effectiveness of programmed instruction with operant training in the language rehabilitation of severely aphasic patients . Behavioural Psychotherapy 1984; 12 ( 3 ):237‐48. [ Google Scholar ]

Liu 2006a {published data only (unpublished sought but not used)}

Liu Y, Zhang L. The TCM‐combined treatment for aphasia due to cerebrovascular disorders . Zhongyi Zazhi [Journal of Traditional Chinese Medicine] 2006; 26 ( 1 ):19‐21. Chinese. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Lyon 1997 {published and unpublished data}

Lyon JG, Cariski D, Keisler L, Rosenbek J, Levine R, Kumpula J, et al. Communication partners: enhancing participation in life and communication for adults with aphasia in natural settings . Aphasiology 1997; 11 ( 7 ):693‐708. [ Google Scholar ]

MacKay 1988 {published data only (unpublished sought but not used)}

Mackay S, Holmes DW, Gersumky AT. Methods to assess aphasic stroke patients . Geriatric Nursing 1988; 9 ( 3 ):177‐9. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Mattioli 2014 {published and unpublished data}

Ambrosi C, Mattioli F, Mascaro L, Biagi L, Tosetti M, Gasparotti R. Functional MR imaging of patients with mild aphasia after stroke: Activation of language network from acute to chronic phase and preliminary results of early rehabilitation effect . Neuroradiology Journal 2010; 23 :340. [ Google Scholar ]
Mattioli F, Ambrosi C, Mascaro L, Scarpazza C, Pasquali P, Frugoni M, et al. Early aphasia rehabilitation Is associated with functional reactivation of the left inferior frontal gyrus: a pilot study . Stroke 2014; 45 ( 2 ):545‐52. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Meikle 1979 {published data only (unpublished sought but not used)}

Meikle M, Wechsler E, Tupper A, Benenson M, Butler J, Mulhall D, et al. Comparative trial of volunteer and professional treatments of dysphasia after stroke . BMJ 1979; 2 ( 6182 ):87‐9. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Meinzer 2007 {published and unpublished data}

Meinzer M, Streiftau S, Rockstroh B. Intensive language training in the rehabilitation of chronic aphasia ‐ effective training by laypersons . Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society 2007; 13 ( 5 ):846‐53. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

MIT 2014i {published and unpublished data}

Meulen AC, Sandt‐Koenderman WME, Visch‐Brink EG, Smits M, Duivenvoorden HJ, Ribbers GM. The efficacy of melodic intonation therapy (MIT) in aphasia rehabilitation: Research Protocol Version 2 . http://www.trialregister.nl/trialreg/admin/rctview.asp?TC=1961 (accessed 22 September 2015).
Meulen I, Sandt‐Koenderman ME, Heijenbrok‐Kal MH, Visch‐Brink EG, Ribbers GM. The efficacy and timing of melodic intonation therapy in subacute aphasia . Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair 2014; 28 ( 6 ):536‐44. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Meulen I, Sandt‐Koenderman ME, Ribbers GM. Melodic Intonation Therapy: present controversies and future opportunities . Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 2012; 93 ( Suppl 1 ):S46‐52. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

MIT 2014ii {published and unpublished data}

Narnia 2013 {published data only}.

ACTRN12613001263785. For people with aphasia following stroke, is a manualised narrative intervention programme aimed at improving discourse in everyday communication situations more effective than usual speech pathology intervention as measured by improved language ability across the different levels of language (i.e. words, sentences, discourse) in everyday communication activities? . http://www.anzctr.org.au/ACTRN12613001263785.aspx (accessed 22 September 2015). [ACTRN12613001263785]
Whitworth A, Leitão S, Cartwright J, Webster J, Hankey GJ, Zach J, et al. NARNIA: a new twist to an old tale. A pilot RCT to evaluate a multilevel approach to improving discourse in aphasia . Aphasiology 2015; 29 ( 11 ):1345‐82. [ Google Scholar ]

ORLA 2006 {published and unpublished data}

Cherney LR, Babbitt EM, Cole R, Vuuren S, Hurwitz R, Ngampatipatpong M. Computer treatment for aphasia: efficacy and treatment intensity . Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 2006; 87 :E5 (Abst.18). [ Google Scholar ]
Cherney LR, Lee J, Babbit E, Hurwitz R. Is more better? Preliminary results from a computer treatment study for aphasia . Proceedings of the Clinical Aphasiology Conference 2007. May 22‐26 2007; Scottsdale. Arizona, USA . 2007.
Cole R, Cherney L. ORLA (Oral Reading for Language in Aphasia with Virtual Therapist) . www.bltek.com/virtual‐teachers/orla.html (accessed 26 November 2014).

ORLA 2010 {published and unpublished data}

Cherney LR. Oral Reading for Language in Aphasia (ORLA): evaluating the efficacy of computer‐delivered therapy in chronic nonfluent aphasia . Topics in Stroke Rehabilitation 2010; 17 ( 6 ):423‐31. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Prins 1989 {published and unpublished data}

Prins RS. Aphasia: classification, treatment and recovery [Afasie: classificatie, behandeling en herstelverloop]. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Amsterdam 1987.
Prins RS, Schoonen R, Vermuelen J. Efficacy of two different types of speech therapy for aphasic patients . Applied Psycholinguistics 1989; 10 ( 1 ):85‐123. [ Google Scholar ]

Pulvermuller 2001 {published and unpublished data}

Pulvermuller F, Neininger B, Elbert T, Mohr B, Rockstroh B, Koebbel P. Constraint‐induced therapy of chronic aphasia after stroke . Stroke 2001; 32 ( 7 ):1621‐6. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

RATS {published and unpublished data}

Doesborgh SJC, Sandt‐Koenderman MWE, Dippel DWJ, Koudstaal PJ, Visch‐Brink EG. Effects of semantic treatment on verbal communication and linguistic processing in aphasia after stroke: a randomized controlled trial . Stroke 2004; 35 ( 1 ):141‐6. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Sandt‐Koenderman MWE, Harskamp F, Duivenvoordend HJ, Remerie SC, Voort‐Klees YA, Wielaert SM, et al. MAAS (Multi‐axial Aphasia System): realistic goal setting in aphasia rehabilitation . International Journal of Rehabilitation Research 2008; 31 ( 4 ):314‐20. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

RATS‐2 {published and unpublished data}

Jong‐Hagelstein M. Word Finding Deficits in Aphasia: Diagnosis and Treatment [PhD thesis] . Rotterdam: Erasmus Universiteit, 2011. [ Google Scholar ]
Jong‐Hagelstein M, Sandt‐Koenderman WME, Prins ND, Dippel DW, Koudstaal PJ, Visch‐Brink EG. Efficacy of early cognitive‐linguistic treatment and communicative treatment in aphasia after stroke: a randomised controlled trial (RATS‐2) . Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry 2011; 82 ( 4 ):399‐404. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Hagelstein M, Rotterdam EMC. The effectiveness of cognitive linguistic therapy in the acute phase of aphasia: a randomised controlled trial . Afasiologie 2006; 4 ( (Special Issue) ):62‐4. [ Google Scholar ]
ISRCTN67723958. The efficacy of cognitive linguistic therapy in the acute stage of aphasia: a randomized controlled trial. The Rotterdam Aphasia Therapy Study‐2 . http://www.trialregister.nl/trialreg/admin/rctview.asp?TC=736 (accessed 26 November 2014).

Rochon 2005 {published and unpublished data}

Rochon E, Laird L, Bose A, Scofield J. Mapping therapy for sentence production impairments in nonfluent aphasia . Neuropsychological Rehabilitation 2005; 15 ( 1 ):1‐36. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

SEMaFORE {published and unpublished data}

Morris J. SemaFoRe: Semantic feature & Repetition therapy in aphasia: a pilot RCT . www.ukctg.nihr.ac.uk/trials?query=%257B%2522query%2522%253A%2522semafore%2522%257D (accessed 22 September 2015).

Shewan 1984i {published and unpublished data}

Shewan CM, Bandur DL. Treatment of Aphasia: A Language‐oriented Approach . San Diego: College‐Hill Press, 1986. [ Google Scholar ]
Shewan CM, Kertesz A. Effects of speech and language treatment on recovery from aphasia . Brain and Language 1984; 23 ( 2 ):272‐99. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Shewan 1984ii {published and unpublished data}

Shewan 1984iii {published and unpublished data}, sickert 2014 {published data only}.

NCT01625676. Constraint‐induced aphasia therapy following sub‐acute stroke: a modified therapy schedule . http://clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT01625676 (accessed 22 September 2015). [NCT01625676]
Sickert A, Anders LC, Munte TF, Sailer M. Constraint‐induced aphasia therapy following sub‐acute stroke: a single‐blind, randomised clinical trial of a modified therapy schedule . Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery Psychiatry 2014; 85 ( 1 ):51‐5. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Smania 2006 {published and unpublished data}

Smania N, Aglioti SM, Girardi F, Tinazzi M, Fiaschi A, Cosentino A, et al. Rehabilitation of limb apraxia improves daily life activities in patients with stroke . Neurology 2006; 67 ( 11 ):2050‐2. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Smania N, Girardi F, Domenicali C, Lora E, Aglioti S. The rehabilitation of limb apraxia: a study in left‐brain‐damaged patients . Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 2000; 81 ( 4 ):379‐88. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Smith 1981i {published and unpublished data}

Duffy FR. Speech therapy after stroke: a randomised controlled trial ‐ an interim report . Demonstration Centres in Rehabilitation Newsletter, Volume 28, 1982.
Smith DS, Goldenberg E, Ashburn A, Kinsella G, Sheikh K, Brennan PJ, et al. Remedial therapy after stroke: a randomised controlled trial . BMJ 1981; 282 ( 6263 ):517‐20. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Smith 1981ii {published and unpublished data}

Smith 1981iii {published and unpublished data}, sp‐i‐rit {published and unpublished data}.

Lauterbach M, Leal G, Aguiar M, Fonseca I, Farrajota L, Fonseca J, et al. Intensive vs conventional speech therapy in aphasia due to ischaemic stroke: a randomized controlled trial . Proceedings of the British Aphasiology Society Biennial International Conference Sept 10‐12 2007; Edinburgh, UK . UK: British Aphasiology Society, 2007:67‐8.
Martins IP, Leal G, Fonseca I, Farrajota L, Aguiar M, Fonseca J, et al. A randomized, rater‐blinded, parallel trial of intensive speech therapy in sub‐acute post‐stroke aphasia: the SP‐I‐R‐IT study . International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders 2013; 48 ( 4 ):421‐31. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Szaflarski 2014 {published data only (unpublished sought but not used)}

Szaflarski J, Allendorfer J, Ball A, Banks C, Dietz A, Hart K, et al. Randomized controlled trial of constraint‐induced aphasia therapy in patients with chronic stroke . Neurology 2014; 82 ( 10 Suppl ):S21.001. [ Google Scholar ]

Van Steenbrugge 1981 {published and unpublished data}

Steenbrugge WJ, Prins RS. Word finding difficulties and efficacy of systematic language therapy in aphasic patients . Logopedie en Foniatrie 1981; 53 :622‐37. [ Google Scholar ]

Varley 2016i {published and unpublished data}

Varley R, Cowell PE, Dyson L, Inglis L, Roper A, Whiteside SP. Self‐administered computer therapy for apraxia of speech: two‐period randomized control trial with crossover . Stroke 2016; 47 ( 3 ):822‐8. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Varley R, Windsor F, Whiteside S. Whole word therapy for acquired apraxia of speech . Proceedings of the Clinical Aphasiology Conference 2005. May 31 ‐ June 4 2005; Sanibel Island, Florida, USA . 2005.
Whiteside SP, Inglis AL, Dyson L, Roper A, Harbottle A, Ryder J, et al. Error reduction therapy in reducing struggle and grope behaviours in apraxia of speech . Neuropsychological Rehabilitation 2012; 22 ( 2 ):267‐94. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Varley 2016ii {published and unpublished data}

Varley R, Windsor F, Whiteside S. Whole word therapy for acquired apraxia of speech . 35th Clinical Aphasiology Conference, Sanibel Island (Florida) . 2005.

VERSE I {published and unpublished data}

Godecke E, Ciccone N, Granger A, Hankey G, West D, Cream A, et al. Aphasia therapy in early stroke recovery . International Journal of Stroke 2011; 6 ( Issue supplement 1 ):12. [ Google Scholar ]
Godecke E, Hird K, Lalor E. Aphasia therapy in the acute hospital setting: is it justified? . Internal Medicine Journal 2008; 38 ( Suppl 4 ):A88. [ Google Scholar ]
Godecke E, Hird K, Lalor EE, Phillips M. Who needs early aphasia therapy? [Abstract 38] . Cerebrovascular Diseases 2010; 29 ( Suppl 2 ):337. [ Google Scholar ]
Godecke E, Hird K, Lalor EE, Rai T, Phillips MR. Very early poststroke aphasia therapy: a pilot randomized controlled efficacy trial . International Journal of Stroke 2012; 7 ( 8 ):635‐44. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Godecke E, West D, Cartwright J, Cream A, Ciccone N, Granger A, et al. Intensive aphasia therapy in the early poststroke recovery phase: is group intervention a viable therapy option? . International Journal of Stroke 2009; 4 ( Issue‐s1 ):28. [ Google Scholar ]
West D, Cream A, Godecke E, Cartwright J, Ciccone N, Granger AS, et al. Intensive aphasia therapy in the early poststroke recovery phase: is group intervention a viable therapy option? [Abstract B30] . International Journal of Stroke 2009; 4 ( Suppl 1 ):28. [ Google Scholar ]

VERSE II {unpublished data only}

Ciccone NA, West DK, Cream A, Cartwright J, Rai T, Granger AS, et al. Constraint‐induced aphasia therapy (CIAT): a randomised controlled trial in very early stroke rehabilitation . Aphasiology 2016; 30 ( 5 ):566‐584. [ Google Scholar ]
Godecke E, Cowan E, Rai T, Ciccone NA, Granger AS, Cream A, et al. Does the amount of aphasia therapy in the first 4‐5 weeks after stroke improve outcome? Very Early Rehabilitation in SpEech‐II (VERSE II) . Cerebrovascular Diseases 2012; 33 ( Suppl 2 ):42. [ Google Scholar ]

Wertz 1981 {published and unpublished data}

Avent JR, Wertz RT. Influence of type of aphasia and type of treatment on aphasic patients' pragmatic performance . Aphasiology 1996; 10 ( 3 ):253‐65. [ Google Scholar ]
Wertz R, Collins MJ, Weiss D, Kurtzke JF, Friden T, Brookshire RH, et al. Veterans administration cooperative study on aphasia: a comparison of individual and group treatment . Journal of Speech and Hearing Research 1981; 24 ( 4 ):580‐94. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Wertz 1986i {published and unpublished data}

Kurtzke JF, Wertz RT, Weiss DG, Garcia‐Bunuel L, Aten JL, Brookshire RH, et al. Comparison of improvement in neurologic severity and language in treated and untreated aphasic patients . Neurology 1985; 35 ( Suppl 1 ):122. [ Google Scholar ]
Marshall RC, Wertz RT, Weiss DG, Aten J, Brookshire RH, Garcia‐Bunuel L, et al. Home treatment for aphasic patients by trained nonprofessionals . Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders 1989; 54 ( 3 ):462‐70. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Wertz R, Weiss WG, Aten JL, Brookshire RH, Garcia‐Bunuel L, Holland AL, et al. Comparison of clinic, home and deferred language treatment . Archives of Neurology 1986; 43 ( 4 ):653‐8. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Wertz 1986ii {published and unpublished data}

Wertz 1986iii {published and unpublished data}.

Kurtzke JF, Wertz RT, Weiss DG, Garcia‐Bunuel L, Aten JL, Brookshire RH, et al. Comparison of Improvement in neurologic severity and language in treated and untreated aphasic patients . Neurology 1985; 35 ( Suppl 1 ):122. [ Google Scholar ]

Wilssens 2015 {published data only}

Wilssens I, Vandenborre D, Dun K, Verhoeven J, Visch‐Brink E, Marien P. Constraint‐induced aphasia therapy versus intensive semantic treatment in fluent aphasia . American Journal of Speech‐Language Pathology 2015; 24 ( 2 ):281‐94. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Woolf 2015i {published and unpublished data}

Woolf C, Caute A, Haigh Z, Galliers J, Wilson S, Kessie A, et al. A comparison of remote therapy, face to face therapy and an attention control intervention for people with aphasia: a quasi‐randomised controlled feasibility study . Clinical Rehabilitation 2016; 30 ( 4 ):359‐73. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Woolf 2015ii {published data only}

Woolf 2015iii {published data only}, wu 2004 {published data only (unpublished sought but not used)}.

Wu X. Analysis of the effect of 'two‐step method' on aphasia in patients with acute cerebrovascular disease . Zhongguo Linchuang Kangfu [Chinese Journal of Clinical Rehabilitation] 2004; 8 ( 22 ):4422‐3. Chinese. [ Google Scholar ]

Wu 2013 {published data only}

Wu H‐X, Qiu W‐H, Kang Z, Yang Q. The Study on Recovery Mechanism of Expressive Aphasia after Stroke Based on fMRI [abstract: 0039] . Journal of Head Trauma Rehabilitation 2013; 28 ( 5 ):E45. [ Google Scholar ]

Xie 2002 {published data only}

Xie SL, Zhu MG, Zhang XL, Xue ZJ. The role of community nursing in family rehabilitation of stroke patients with impaired spoken language . Zhongguo Linchuang Kangfu [Chinese Journal of Clinical Rehabilitation] 2002; 6 ( 21 ):3289. [ Google Scholar ]

Yao 2005i {published data only (unpublished sought but not used)}

Yao J, Xue Y, Li F. Clinical application research on collective language strengthened training in rehabilitation nursing of cerebral apoplexy patients with aphasia . Huli Yanjiu [Chinese Nursing Research] 2005; 19 ( 3B ):482‐4. Chinese. [ Google Scholar ]

Yao 2005ii {published data only (unpublished sought but not used)}

Yao 2005iii {published data only (unpublished sought but not used)}, zhang 2007i {published data only}.

Zhang H‐M. Clinical treatment of apoplectic aphemia with multi‐needle puncture of scalp‐points in combination with visual‐listening‐speech training . Zhenci Yanjiu [Acupuncture Research] 2007; 32 ( 3 ):190‐4. Chinese. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Zhang 2007ii {published data only (unpublished sought but not used)}

Zhao 2000 {published data only (unpublished sought but not used)}.

Zhao H, Ying B, Shen C. Clinical study on the effect of combined therapy of medicine acupuncture and speech training on aphasia from ischemic apoplexy . Henan Zhongyi [Henan Traditional Chinese Medicine] 2000; 20 ( 5 ):31‐2. Chinese. [ Google Scholar ]

References to studies excluded from this review

Albert 1973 {published data only}.

Albert ML, Sparks RW, Helm NA. Melodic intonation therapy for aphasia . Archives of Neurology 1973; 29 ( 2 ):130‐1. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Avent 2004 {published data only}

Avent J. Group treatment for aphasia using cooperative learning principles . Topics in Language Disorder 2004; 24 ( 2 ):118‐24. [ Google Scholar ]

Basso 1975 {published data only}

Basso A, Faglioni P, Vignolo LA. Controlled study of language re‐education in aphasia: comparison between treated and untreated aphasics . Revue Neurologique 1975; 131 ( 9 ):607‐14. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Beukelman 1980 {published data only}

Beukelman DR, Yorkston KM, Waugh PF. Communication in severe aphasia: effectiveness of three instruction modalities . Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 1980; 61 ( 6 ):248‐52. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Bloom 1962 {published data only}

Bloom LM. A rationale for group treatment of aphasic patients . Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders 1962; 27 :11‐16. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Breitenfeld 2005 {published data only}

Breitenfeld T, Jergovi K, Vargek Solter V, Demarin V. Music therapy in aphatic stroke patients ‐ a pilot study . European Journal of Neurology 2005; 12 ( Suppl 2 ):55 (P1060). [ Google Scholar ]

Caute 2013 {published data only}

Caute A, Pring T, Cocks N, Cruice M, Best W, Marshall J. Enhancing communication through gesture and naming therapy . Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 2013; 51 ( 6 ):337‐51. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Cherney 2007 {published and unpublished data}

Cherney LR, Small SL. Intensive language therapy for nonfluent aphasia with and without surgical implantation of an investigational cortical stimulation device: preliminary language and imaging results. . Proceedings of the Clinical Aphasiology Conference 2007. May 22‐26 2007; Scottsdale. Arizona, USA . Pittsburgh, USA: University of Pittsburgh, 2007.

Cherney 2010 {published data only}

Cherney LR, Erickson RK, Small SL. Epidural cortical stimulation as adjunctive treatment for non‐fluent aphasia: preliminary findings . Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry 2010; 81 ( 9 ):1014‐21. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
NCT00170703. Assessment of cortical stimulation combined with rehabilitation to enhance recovery in Broca's aphasia . http://clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT00170703 (accessed 26 November 2014).

Cherney 2011 {published data only}

Cherney LR, Halper AS, Kaye RC. Computer‐based script training for aphasia: emerging themes from post‐treatment interviews . Journal of Communication Disorders 2011; 44 ( 4 ):493‐501. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Cherney 2014 {published data only}

Cherney LR, Kaye RC, Vuuren S. Acquisition and maintenance of scripts in aphasia: a comparison of two cuing conditions . American Journal of Speech and Language Pathology 2014; 23 ( 2 ):S343‐60. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
NCT01597037. Aphasia rehabilitation: modulating cues, feedback and practice . http://clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT01597037 (accessed 22 September 2015).

Cohen 1992 {published data only}

Cohen NS. The effect of singing instruction on the speech production of neurologically impaired persons . Journal of Music Therapy 1992; XXIX ( 2 ):87‐102. [ Google Scholar ]

Cohen 1993 {published data only}

Cohen NS, Masse R. The application of singing and rhythmic instruction as a therapeutic intervention for persons with neurogenic communication disorders . Journal of Music Therapy 1993; XXX ( 2 ):81‐99. [ Google Scholar ]

Cupit 2010 {published data only}

Cupit J, Rochon E, Leonard C, Laird L. Social validation as a measure of improvement after aphasia treatment: Its usefulness and influencing factors . Aphasiology 2010; 24 ( 11 ):1486‐500. [ Google Scholar ]

Ding 1995 {published data only}

Ding H, Lin L, Wu G, Liu Y, Xiao H. Computer‐aided speech therapy system . Zhongguo Shengwu Gongcheng Xuebao [Chinese Journal of Biomedical Engineering] 1995; 14 ( 1 ):39‐44. Chinese. [ Google Scholar ]

Dubner 1972 {published data only}

Dubner H. The role of the speech pathologist in the early treatment of the aphasic patient . Rehabilitation Literature 1972; 33 ( 11 ):330‐1 passim. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Gu 2002 {published data only}

Gu Y, Li SL. The effect of 3‐month rehabilitation therapy for the speech function of aphasiacs . Zhongguo Linchuang Kangfu [Chinese Journal of Clinical Rehabilitation] 2002; 6 ( 7 ):956‐7. Chinese. [ Google Scholar ]

Gu 2003 {published data only}

Gu Y, Wang S, Li S. The method and therapy effect of the early speech therapy on aphasia . Zhongguo Linchuang Kangfu [Chinese Journal of Clinical Rehabilitation] 2003; 7 ( 3 ):382‐3, Chinese. [ Google Scholar ]

Hagen 1973 {published data only}

Hagen C. Communication abilities in hemiplegia: effect of speech therapy . Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 1973; 54 ( 10 ):454‐63. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Harnish 2014 {published data only}

Harnish SM, Morgan J, Lundine JP, Bauer A, Singletary F, Benjamin ML, et al. Dosing of a cued picture‐naming treatment for anomia . American Journal of Speech and Language Pathology 2014; 23 ( 2 ):S285‐99. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Hartman 1987 {published data only}

Albert ML, Helm‐Estabrooks N. Aphasia therapy works . Archives of Neurology 1988; 42 :372‐3. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Hartman J, Landau W. Comparison of formal language therapy with supportive counselling for aphasia due to acute vascular accident . Archives of Neurology 1987; 44 ( 6 ):646‐9. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Landau WM, Hartman JS. In reply to Wertz and Albert . Archives of Neurology 1988; Vol. 45:373.
Wertz RT. Comparison of treatment with counselling is not a test of treatment for aphasia . Archives of Neurology 1988; Vol. 45:371‐2. [ PubMed ]

Hinckley 2005 {published and unpublished data}

Hinckley J, Carr T. Comparing the outcomes of intensive and non‐intensive context‐based aphasia treatment . Aphasiology 2005; 19 ( 10 ):965‐74. [ Google Scholar ]

Holmqvist 1998 {published data only (unpublished sought but not used)}

Thorsén A‐M, Widén Holmqvist L, Pedro‐Cuesta J, Koch L. A randomised controlled trial of early supported discharge and continued rehabilitation at home after stroke . Stroke 2005; 36 ( 2 ):297‐302. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Widén Holmqvist L, Koch L, Kostulas V, Holm M, Widsell G, Tegler H, et al. A randomised controlled trial of rehabilitation at home after stroke in southwest Stockholm . Stroke 1998; 29 ( 3 ):591‐7. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

IHCOP 2014 {unpublished data only}

Woolf C. The effects of phoneme discrimination and semantic therapies for speech perception deficits in aphasia . National Research Register .
Woolf C, Panton A, Rosen S, Best W, Marshall J. Therapy for auditory processing impairment in aphasia: An evaluation of two approaches . Aphasiology 2014; 28 ( 12 ):1481‐505. [ Google Scholar ]

Ji 2011 {published data only}

Ji X, Li HB. Simple motor aphasia caused by cerebral infarction treated with blood‐pricking at Yamen (GV 15) combined with language training . Zhongguo Zhen Jiu [Chinese Acupuncture & Moxibustion] 2011; 31 ( 11 ):979‐82. Chinese. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Jungblut 2004 {published and unpublished data}

Jungblut M, Aldridge D. Effects of a specific music therapy approach in the treatment of patients suffering from chronic nonfluent aphasia . Neurologie und Rehabilitation 2004; 10 ( 2 ):69‐78. [ Google Scholar ]

Kagan 2001 {published and unpublished data}

Kagan A, Black SE, Duchan JF, Simmons‐Mackie N, Square P. Training volunteers as conversation partners using 'supported conversation for adults with aphasia' (SCA): a controlled trial . Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research 2001; 44 ( 3 ):624‐38. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Kalra 1993 {published data only}

Kalra L, Dale P, Crome P. Improving stroke rehabilitation: a controlled study . Stroke 1993; 24 ( 10 ):1462‐7. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Kendall 2015 {published data only}

Kendall DL, Oelke M, Brookshire CE, Nadeau SE. The influence of phonomotor treatment on word retrieval abilities in 26 individuals with chronic aphasia: an open trial . Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research 2015; 58 ( 3 ):798‐812. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Kinsey 1986 {published data only (unpublished sought but not used)}

Kinsey C. Microcomputer speech therapy for dysphasic adults: a comparison with two conventionally administered tasks . British Journal of Disorders of Communication 1986; 21 ( 1 ):125‐33. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Kurt 2008 {published and unpublished data}

Kurt T, Kizilisik O, Satici SB, Akhan G. The efficacy of the short‐term language therapy in aphasic patients without comprehension deficit during the subacute stage of stroke . European Journal of Neurology 2008; 15 ( Suppl 3 ):374 (P2694). [ Google Scholar ]

Lara 2009 {published data only}

Lara JP, Barbancho MA, Berthier ML, Green C, Navas P, wid‐Milner MS, et al. ERPs correlates of recovery from chronic post‐stroke aphasia in patients treated with memantine and constraint‐induced aphasia therapy . European Journal of Neurology 2009; 16 ( S3 ):457. [ Google Scholar ]

Lara 2011 {published data only}

Lara JP, Barbancho MA, Berthier ML, Green C, Navas P, Wid‐Milner MS, et al. ERP evidence of therapy‐related reorganization of language of patients with post stroke chronic aphasia . Clinical Neurophysiology 2011; 122 :S172. [ Google Scholar ]

Li 2005 {published data only}

Li QW, Chen ZM, Huang SS, Li LJ, Tang GH, Luo DM, et al. Outcome evaluation of language disorder diagnosis apparatus ZM2.1 in treatment of Broca's aphasia . Zhongguo Linchuang Kangfu [Chinese Journal of Clinical Rehabilitation] 2005; 9 ( 25 ):14‐6. Chinese. [ Google Scholar ]

Lincoln 1986 {published data only}

Lincoln, NB, McGuirk E. Prediction of language recovery in aphasic stroke patients using the Porch Index of Communicative Ability . British Journal of Disorders of Communication 1986; 21 ( 1 ):83‐8. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Liu 2006b {published data only (unpublished sought but not used)}

Liu X, Dai R, Cheng L. Correlation between the design of aphasia rehabilitative program and the diseased sites of cerebrum . Zhongguo Linchuang Kangfu [Chinese Journal of Clinical Rehabilitation] 2006; 10 ( 14 ):7‐9. Chinese. [ Google Scholar ]

Loeher 2007 {published data only}

Loeher KE. Spaced Versus Massed Practice in Aphasia Therapy [PhD Thesis] . Detroit: Wayne State University, 2007. [ Google Scholar ]

Luo 2008 {published data only}

Luo W, Tan J, Huang H. Clinical observation on treatment of cerebral infarction‐induced Broca aphasia by tiaoshen fuyin acupuncture therapy combined with language training . Zhongguo Zhen Jiu [Chinese Acupuncture and Moxibustion] 2008; 28 ( 3 ):171‐5. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Maher 2008 {unpublished data only}

NCT00223847. An investigation of constraint induced language therapy for aphasia . https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00223847 (accessed 26 November 2014).
Wu S. An investigation of constraint induced language therapy for treatment of aphasia . www.rorc.research.va.gov/Project_Template.cfm?Project_ID=2141693285 (accessed 25 March 2012) .

Marcotte 2013 {published data only}

Marcotte K, Perlbarg V, Marrelec G, Benali H, Ansaldo AI. Default‐mode network functional connectivity in aphasia: therapy‐induced neuroplasticity . Brain and Language 2013; 124 ( 1 ):45‐55. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Marshall 2001 {published data only}

Marshall RC, Freed DB, Karow CM. Learning of subordinate category names by aphasic subjects: a comparison of deep and surface‐level training methods . Aphasiology 2001; 15 ( 6 ):585‐98. [ Google Scholar ]

Mattioli 2010 {published data only}

Mattioli F, Magoni M, Ambrosi C, Gasparotti R. fMRI correlates of early aphasia rehabilitation after stroke: preliminary results . Journal of Neurology 2010; 257 :S19. [ Google Scholar ]

McCall 2007 {published data only}

McCall D, Linebarger MC, Berndt RS. Predicting effects of computer‐based intervention on structure and content of aphasic patients' spoken language . Brain and Language 2007; 103 ( 1‐2 ):207‐8. [ Google Scholar ]

Meinzer 2005 {published and unpublished data}

Meinzer M, Djundja D, Barthel G, Elbert T, Rockstroh B. Long‐term stability of improved language functions in chronic aphasia after constraint‐induced aphasia therapy . Stroke 2005; 36 ( 7 ):1462‐6. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Pistarini 1989 {published data only}

Pistarini C, Guarnaschelli C, Bazzini A, Zonca G. Evaluation of efficacy of a logopedic rehabilitation method . Riabilitazione 1989; 22 ( 1 ):47‐55. [ Google Scholar ]

Popovici 1992 {published data only}

Popovici M, Mihailescu L. Melodic intonation in the rehabilitation of Romanian aphasics with bucco‐lingual apraxia . Romanian Journal of Neurology and Psychiatry 1992; 30 ( 2 ):99‐113. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Qiu 2003 {published data only}

Qiu HY, Gao C, Liu YC. Treatment of basal segmental aphasia by acupuncture and programmed musical electro‐acupuncture apparatus . New Journal of Traditional Chinese Medicine 2003; 35 ( 12 ):48‐9. Chinese. [ Google Scholar ]

Quinteros 1984 {published data only}

Quinteros B, Williams DRR, White CAM, Pickering M. The costs of using trained and supervised volunteers as part of a speech therapy service for dysphasic patients . British Journal of Disorders of Communication 1984; 19 :205‐12. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Rasmussen 2013 {published data only}

Rasmussen RS, Overgaard K, Ostergaard A, Kjaer P, Skerris A, Skou C, et al. Post‐stroke rehabilitation at home reduced disability and improved quality of life: a randomized controlled trial . Cerebrovascular Diseases 2013; 35 ( January ):94‐5. [ Google Scholar ]

Raymer 2008 {unpublished data only}

NCT00764400. Treatment for word retrieval impairments in aphasia . https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00764400 (accessed 26 November 2014).
Raymer AM, McHose B, Smith KG, Iman L, Ambrose A, Casselton C. Contrasting effects of errorless naming treatment and gestural facilitation for word retrieval in aphasia . Neuropsychological Rehabilitation 2011; 22 ( 2 ):235‐66. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Reinvang 1976 {published data only}

Reinvang IR, Hjeltnes N, Guvaag SP. Aphasia treatment in stroke patients. Results achieved in 18 patients 3‐6 months after accident . Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen 1976; 96 ( 27 ):1421‐3. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Rudd 1997 {published data only}

Rudd AG, Wolfe CDA, Tilling K, Beech R. Randomised controlled trial to evaluate early discharge scheme for patients with stroke . BMJ 1997; 315 ( October ):1039‐44. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Stoicheff 1960 {published data only}

Stoicheff M. Motivating instructions and language performance of dysphasic subjects . Journal of Speech and Hearing Research 1960; 3 ( 1 ):75‐85. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Thompson 2010 {published data only}

Thompson CK, Choy JJ, Holland A, Cole R. Sentactics®: Computer‐automated treatment of underlying forms . Aphasiology 2010; 24 ( 10 ):1242‐66. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Tseng 2014 {published data only}

Tseng CE, Lin CP, Tsai PC, Yip BS, Lin CM, Yang FP. Melodic intonation therapy in stroke patients with aphasia: A DTI study . Cerebrovascular Diseases 2014; 38 ( September ):40. [ Google Scholar ]

Van Lancker 1997 {published data only (unpublished sought but not used)}

Lancker D, Hall E, Goldojarb M. An interactive video system to test and treat nonliteral language disorders . Rehabilitation R&D Progress Reports 1997; 34 ( May ):255‐6. [ Google Scholar ]

Vauth 2008 {published data only}

Vauth F, Hampel P, Scibor M, Handschu R, Richter J, Keidel M. Synchronic telepractise: a new (additional) form of aphasia therapy . Forum Logopadie 2008; 224 ( 4 ):12‐9. [ Google Scholar ]

Vines 2007 {published data only}

Vines BW, Norton AC, Schlaug G. Applying transcranial direct current stimulation in combination with melodic intonation therapy facilitates language recovery for Broca's aphasic patients. [Abstract P150] . Stroke 2007; 38 ( 2 ):519. [ Google Scholar ]

Wang 2004 {published data only}

Wang D, Lu Y, Xie R, Yao J. Effect of different intensities of rehabilitation therapy on the prognosis of patients with stroke . Chinese Journal of Clinical Rehabilitation 2004; 8 ( 22 ):4410‐1. [ Google Scholar ]

Weiduschat 2011 {published data only}

Weiduschat N, Thiel A, Rubi‐Fessen I, Hartmann A, Kessler J, Merl P, et al. Effects of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation in aphasic stroke: a randomized controlled pilot study . Stroke 2011; 42 ( 2 ):409‐15. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Wenke 2014 {published data only}

Wenke R, Lawrie M, Hobson T, Comben W, Romano M, Ward E, et al. Feasibility and cost analysis of implementing high intensity aphasia clinics within a sub‐acute setting . International Journal of Speech‐Language Pathology 2014; 16 ( 3 ):250‐9. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

West 1973 {published data only}

West JA. Auditory comprehension in aphasic adults: improvement through training . Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 1973; 54 ( 2 ):78‐86. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Wolfe 2000 {published data only}

Wolfe CDA, Tilling K, Rudd AG. The effectiveness of community‐based rehabilitation for stroke patients who remain at home: a pilot randomized trial . Clinical Rehabilitation 2000; 14 ( 6 ):563‐9. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Wood‐Dauphinee 1984 {published data only}

Wood‐Dauphinee S, Shapiro S, Bass E, Fletcher C, Georges P, Hensby V, et al. A randomized trial of team care following stroke . Stroke 1984; 15 ( 5 ):864‐72. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Xu 2005 {published data only}

Xu Y, Li Q, Hao Y. Observation on the efficacy of acupuncture plus rehabilitation composite treatment for apoplectic aphasia . Shanghai Zhenjiu Zazhi [Shanghai Journal of Acupuncture and Moxibustion] 2005; 24 ( 8 ):30‐1. Chinese. [ Google Scholar ]

Zhang 2004 {published data only}

Zhang T, Li LL, Bi S, Mei YW, Xie RM, Luo ZM, et al. Effects of three‐stage rehabilitation treatment on acute cerebrovascular diseases: a prospective randomized controlled multicenter study . Zhonghua Yixue Zazhi [Chinese Medical Journal] 2004; 84 ( 23 ):1948‐54. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

References to studies awaiting assessment

E‐vic 1990 {published data only (unpublished sought but not used)}.

Goodenough‐Tregapnier C. Functional communication using VIC . Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society 1990; 12 ( 3 ):1313‐4. [ Google Scholar ]
Goodenough‐Trepagnier C. Early intervention with globally aphasic stroke patients using a computerized visual communication technique. [Abstract 461] . Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development 1990; 28 ( Pt 1 ):369‐70. [ Google Scholar ]
Goodenough‐Trepagnier C. Evaluation of the functional communicative benefit of VIC for persons with chronic global aphasia . Rehabilitation R&D Progress Reports 1990; 28 ( 1 ):368‐9. [ Google Scholar ]
Goodenough‐Trepagnier C. VIC Performance‐effect of grammatical category . Proceedings of the 12th RESNA Annual Conference: Technology for the Next Decade, June 25‐30, 1989 . New Orleans, Louisiana, 1989:143‐4.

Gans 1977 {published data only}

Gans K, Derk Weidner WE. Melodic intonation therapy and confrontation naming in adult aphasics . Ohio Journal of Speech and Hearing 1977; 13 ( 1 ):30‐40. [ Google Scholar ]

Gonzalez 2012 {published data only}

Gonzalez I, Petit H, Muller F, Daviet JC, Trias J, De, Boissezon X, et al. The workbook of communication C.COM in disclosure alterations of severe vascular aphasia [Le cahier de communication C.COM dans les alterations de la communication de l'aphasie vasculaire severe]. Annals of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine 2012; 55 ( Suppl 1 ):e213‐6. [ Google Scholar ]

Gonzalez‐Rothi 2004 {published data only}

Gonzalez‐Rothi LJ, Wu S. An investigation of constraint induced language therapy for treatment of aphasia . http://www.vard.org/rorc/currently_funded_research.html (accessed 26 November 2014).

Howard 1985 {published and unpublished data}

Howard D, Patterson K, Franklin S, Orchard‐Lisle V, Morton J. Treatment of word retrieval deficits in aphasia. A comparison of two therapy methods . Brain 1985; 108 ( (Pt 4) ):817‐29. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

HTA 2015 (author not known) {published data only}

DAHTA DIMDI. Need and evidence in logopedics and computer‐based speech therapy in 50‐year‐old stroke patients in Germany (Project record) . Health Technology Assessment Database 2015, issue 3.

Stachowiak 1994 {published and unpublished data}

Stachowiak FJ. Computer‐based aphasia therapy with the Lingware/STACH System . In: Stachowiak FJ, Bleser R, Deloche G, Kaschel R, Kremin H, North P, et al. editor(s). Developments in the Assessment and Rehabilitation of Brain‐Damaged Patients ‐ Perspectives from a European Concerted Action . Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag Tűbingen, 1993:353‐80. [ Google Scholar ]
Stachowiak FJ. Computers in aphasia rehabilitation . In: Christensen A‐L, Uzzell BP editor(s). Brain Injury and Neuropsychological Rehabilitation: International Perspectives . 1st Edition. Hillsdale New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1994:133‐160. [ Google Scholar ]
Stachowiak FJ. Micro‐computers in the assessment and rehabilitation of brain‐damaged patients . Technology and Health Care 1993; 1 ( 1 ):19‐43. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Zhang 2015 {published data only}

Zhang Y, Yao Y, Lu X. Therapeutic effect of music therapy and speech language therapy on post‐stroke patients with non‐fluent aphasia . Chinese Medical Association 2015; 4 :274‐8. [ Google Scholar ]

References to ongoing studies

Ask {published data only}.

ACTRN12614000979651. In stroke patients with aphasia and their caregivers does the Aphasia ASK Action Success Knowledge (ASK) program, compared to an attention control package, promote better mood and overall quality of life outcomes . http://www.anzctr.org.au/ACTRN12614000979651.aspx (accessed 22 September 2015). [ACTRN12614000979651]

Big CACTUS {published data only}

ISRCTN68798818. Cost effectiveness of aphasia computer treatment versus usual stimulation or attention control long term post stroke . http://isrctn.org/ISRCTN68798818 (accessed 22 September 2015). [ISRCTN68798818]
Palmer R. Clinical and cost effectiveness of aphasia computer therapy compared with usual stimulation or attention control long term post stroke (CACTUS) (Project record) . Health Technology Assessment Database 2014; 4 :1‐34. [ Google Scholar ]
Palmer R, Cooper C, Enderby P, Brady M, Julious S, Bowen A, et al. Clinical and cost effectiveness of computer treatment for aphasia post stroke (Big CACTUS): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial . Trials 2015; 16 ( 1 ):18. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

CATChES {published data only}

NCT01928602. Does inner speech improve access to overt speech in aphasia following stroke? An fMRI study utilising computerised rehabilitation software . http://clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT01928602 (accessed 22 September 2015).

COMPARE {published and unpublished data}

Rose M, Attard M, Mok Z, Lanyon L, Foster A. Multi‐modality aphasia therapy is as efficacious as a constraint‐induced aphasia therapy for chronic aphasia: a phase 1 study . Aphasiology 2013; 27 ( 8 ):938‐71. [ Google Scholar ]
Rose M, Attard MC, Mok Z, Katthagen S. Variability in treatment responsiveness to constraint and multi‐modal aphasia therapy calls for larger well‐powered trials in chronic aphasia . International Journal of Stroke 2014; 9 ( Suppl 1 ):9. [ Google Scholar ]
Rose M, Mok Z, Katthagen S. The comparative impact of multi‐modality and constraint induced aphasia therapy on discourse in aphasia . The 16th International Aphasia Rehabilitation Conference . 2014:8.

FCET2EC {published and unpublished data}

Baumgaertner A, Grewe T, Ziegler W, Floel A, Springer L, Martus P, et al. FCET2EC (From controlled experimental trial to = 2 everyday communication): How effective is intensive integrative therapy for stroke‐induced chronic aphasia under routine clinical conditions? A study protocol for a randomized controlled trial . Trials 2013; 14 ( 1 ):308 doi:10.1186/1745‐6215‐14‐308. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Breitenstein C, Baumgaertner A, Grewe T, Floel A, Ziegler W, Martus P, et al. From controlled experimental trial to=2 everyday communication (FCET2EC): how effective is intensive speech and language therapy in chronic aphasia? . Proceedings of the 16th International Aphasia Rehabilitation Conference 2014 . The Hague, The Netherlands, 2014:20.
NCT01540383. Effectiveness of intensive aphasia therapy under routine clinical conditions (FCET2EC) . www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01540383 (accessed 22 September 2015). [NCT01540383]

IMITATE {published data only (unpublished sought but not used)}

Lee J, Fowler R, Rodney D, Cherney L, Small SL. IMITATE: An intensive computer‐based treatment for aphasia based on action observation and imitation . Aphasiology 2010; 24 ( 4 ):449‐65. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
NCT00713050. Speech and language therapy after stroke . ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00713050 (accessed 22 September 2015).
Schmah T, Strother SC, Zemel RS, Yourganov G, Schiel M, Buchholz B, et al. Complexity of functional connectivity in aphasia treatment . Stroke 2011; 42 ( 11 ):e619. [ Google Scholar ]

Kukkonen 2007 {published and unpublished data}

Kukkonen T, Korpijaakko‐Huuhka AM. How much is enough and when is the right time? What do we know about the good practice and timing of aphasia rehabilitation? . Proceedings of the British Aphasiology Society Biennial International Conference Sept 10‐12 2007; Edinburgh . UK: British Aphasiology Society, 2007:67‐8.
Kukkonen T, Molnár G, Korpijaakko‐Huuhka A‐M. How much is enough and when is the right time? Developing strategies for assessing aphasia rehabilitation . 27th World Congress of the International Association of Logopedics and Phoniatrics; 2007 Aug 5‐9; Copenhagen (Denmark) .

Kurland ‐ {"type":"clinical-trial","attrs":{"text":"NCT02012374","term_id":"NCT02012374"}} NCT02012374 {published data only}

NCT02012374. Overcoming learned non‐use in chronic aphasia: behavioral, fMRI and QoL outcomes . http://clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT02012374 (accessed 22 September 2015). [NCT02012374]

LIFT 2014 {published and unpublished data}

ACTRN12613001182785. Can a new intensive model of aphasia rehabilitation achieve better outcomes than usual care with chronic aphasia resulting from stroke? . https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=364926 (accessed 22 September 2015). [ACTRN12613001182785]
Rodriguez AD, Worrall L, Brown K, Grohn B, McKinnon E, Pearson C, et al. Aphasia LIFT: Exploratory investigation of an intensive comprehensive therapy program . Aphasiology 2013; 27 ( 11 ):1339‐61. [ Google Scholar ]
Wenke R, Lawrie M, Hobson T, Comben W, Romano M, Cardell E, et al. High Intensity Aphasia Clinics: embedding the evidence into Queensland Health Project Completion Report . Brisbane: Queensland Health, 2012. [ Google Scholar ]

MIT USA {unpublished data only}

Schlaug G. Melodic Intonation Therapy (MIT) . Stroke Trials Registry, Internet Stroke Center: www.strokecenter.org/trials/ (accessed 22 September 2015).
Schlaug G. Singing to speaking: observations in healthy singers and patients with Broca's aphasia . American Association for the Advancement of Science Annual Meeting; 2010 Feb 18‐22; San Diego (CA). http://aaas.confex.com/aaas/2010/webprogram/Paper1481.html . (accessed 25 March 2012).
Schlaug G, Marchina S, Norton A. From singing to speaking: why singing may lead to recovery of expressive language function in patients with Broca's aphasia . Music Perception 2008; 25 ( 4 ):315‐23. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Schlaug G, Norton A. Behavioral and neural correlates of melodic intonation therapy versus speech repetition therapy in patients with non‐fluent aphasia [Abst. CT P37] . Proceedings of the International Stroke Conference 2009; 2009 Feb 18‐20; San Diego (CA) . 2009.
Schlaug G, Norton A, Marchina S, Zipse L, Wan CY. From singing to speaking: facilitating recovery from nonfluent aphasia . Future Neurology 2010; 5 ( 5 ):657‐65. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Nehra ‐ CTRI/2014/04/004554 {published data only}

CTRI/2014/04/004554. To study the effectiveness of ‘Comprehensive Neuropsychological Rehabilitation’ as an adjunct to standard pharmacological treatment for improving language and quality of life in patients with post stroke aphasia: a randomized controlled clinical trial . www.ctri.nic.in/Clinicaltrials/pmaindet2.php?trialid=8024 (accessed 22 September 2015).

ORLA‐Write {published data only}

NCT01790880. Enhancing written communication in persons with aphasia: a clinical trial . http://clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT01790880 (accessed 22 September 2015).

Osborne 2012 {published data only}

Osborne A, Nickels L. Constraint in aphasia therapy. Is it important for clinical outcomes? . International Journal of Stroke 2012; 7 ( Suppl 1 ):53‐4. [ Google Scholar ]

PMvSFA {published data only}

NCT02153710. Speech therapy for aphasia: comparing two treatments (PMvSFA) . https://clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT02153710 (accessed 22 September 2015).

RATS‐3 {unpublished data only}

NTR3271. Rotterdam Aphasia Therapy Study‐3: The efficacy of early, intensive cognitive‐linguistic therapy in aphasia after stroke (a randomized controlled trial). ‐ RATS‐3 . http://www.trialregister.nl/trialreg/admin/rctview.asp?TC=3271 (accessed 26 November 2014).
Nouwens F. Rotterdam Aphasia Therapy Study‐3: The efficacy of early, intensive cognitive‐linguistic therapy in aphasia after stroke (a randomized controlled trial) (RATS‐3) . http://apps.who.int/trialsearch/Trial2.aspx?TrialID=NTR3271 (accessed 22 September 2015).

TNT ‐ ACTRN12614000081617 {published data only}

ACTRN12614000081617. Tablets and technology during stroke recovery . https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=365227&isClinicalTrial=False (accessed 22 September 2015).

U‐Health {published data only}

NCT01815905. U‐Health service using mobile device for improvement of post‐stroke upper limb function and aphasia . http://clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT01815905 (accessed 22 September 2015).

VERSE III {published data only}

ACTRN12613000776707. A three armed, prospective multicentre randomised controlled speech therapy trial comparing usual care, usual care plus and Very Early Rehabilitation in Speech (VERSE) with blinded outcome assessment of the Aphasia Quotient score in patients with aphasia following acute stroke . Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (accessed 26 November 2014).
Godecke E, Armstrong E, Bernhardt J, Middleton S, Rai T, Cadilhac D, et al. Multidisciplinary clinical rehabilitation very early rehabilitation in speech (verse): progress report on an Australian randomized controlled trial of aphasia therapy after stroke . International Journal of Stroke 2014; 9 :223. [ Google Scholar ]
Godecke E, Armstrong E, Bernhardt J, Middleton S, Rai T, Holland A, et al. Very Early Rehabilitation in SpEech (VERSE): the development of an Australian randomised controlled trial of aphasia therapy after stroke . International Journal of Stroke 2013; 8 :44‐5. [ Google Scholar ]

Additional references

Altman 2001.

Altman DG, Schulz KF, Moher D, Egger M, Davidoff F, Elbourne D, et al. The revised CONSORT statement for reporting randomized trials: explanation and elaboration . Annals of Internal Medicine 2001; 134 ( 8 ):663‐94. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Bastiaanse 1995

Bastiaanse R, Bosje M, Visch‐Brink EG. Dutch adaptation of Kay J, Lesser R, Coltheart M. Psycholinguistic Assessment of Language Processing in Aphasia . Hove, UK: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Ltd, 1995. [ Google Scholar ]

Benson 1996

Benson DF, Ardila A. Aphasia: A Clinical Perspective . New York: Oxford University Press, 1996. [ Google Scholar ]
Best W, Greenwood A, Grassly J, Herbert R, Hicklin J, Howard D. Aphasia rehabilitation: does generalisation from anomia therapy occur and is it predictable? A case series study . Cortex 2013; 49 ( 9 ):2345‐57. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Bhogal 2003

Bhogal SK, Teasell R, Speechley M. Intensity of aphasia therapy, impact on recovery . Stroke 2003; 34 ( 4 ):987‐93. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Blomert 1994

Blomert L, Kean ML, Koster C, Schokker J. Amsterdam‐Nijmegen Everyday Language Test: construction, reliability and validity . Aphasiology 1994; 8 ( 4 ):381‐407. [ Google Scholar ]

Borkowski 1967

Borkowski JG, Benton AL, Spreen O. Word fluency and brain damage . Neuropsychologia 1967; 5 ( 2 ):135‐40. [ Google Scholar ]
Boyle M, Coelho CA. Application of semantic feature analysis as a treatment for aphasic dysnomia . American Journal of Speech‐Language Pathology 1995; 4 ( November ):94‐8. [ Google Scholar ]

Bradburn 1969

Bradburn NM. The Structure of Psychological Well‐being . Chicago IL: Aldine, 1969. [ Google Scholar ]

Brooks 1996

Brooks R, the EuroQol Group. EuroQol; the current state of play . Health Policy 1996; 37 ( 1 ):53‐72. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Brott T, Adams HP, Olinger C, Marler JR, Barsan WG, Biller J, et al. Measurements of acute cerebral infarction: a clinical examination scale . Stroke 1989; 20 ( 7 ):864–70. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Caplan 1998

Caplan D, Hanna JE. Sentence production by aphasic patients in a constrained task . Brain and Language 1998; 63 ( 2 ):184‐218. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Castro‐Caldas 1979

Castro‐Caldas A. Diagnostico e Evolucao das Afasias de Causa Vascular . Lisboa: Faculdade de Medicina de Lisboa, 1979. [ Google Scholar ]

Cherney 2008

Cherney LR, Patterson JP, Raymer A, Frymark T, Schooling T. Evidence‐based systematic review: effects of intensity of treatment and constraint‐induced language therapy for individuals with stroke‐induced aphasia . Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research 2008; 51 ( 5 ):1282‐99. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Code C, Herrmann M. The relevance of emotional and psychological factors in aphasia to rehabilitation . Neuropsychological Rehabilitation 2003; 13 ( 1/2 ):109‐32. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Crosson 2007

Del toro 2008.

Toro CM, Altmann LJ, Raymer AM, Leon S, Blonder LX, Gonzalez Rothi LJ. Changes in aphasic discourse after contrasting treatments for anomia . Aphasiology 2008; 22 ( 7‐8 ):881‐92. [ Google Scholar ]

DeRenzi 1962

DeRenzi E, Vignolo LA. The Token Test: a sensitive test to detect receptive disturbances in aphasics . Brain 1962; 85 ( December ):665‐78. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Druks J, Masterson J. An Object and Action Naming Battery . Hove: Psychology Press, 2000. [ Google Scholar ]
Duffy J, Coelho C. Schuell's stimulation approach to rehabilitation . In: Chapey R editor(s). Language Interventions Strategies in Aphasia and Related Neurogenic Communication Disorders . Baltimore: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2001:341–82. [ Google Scholar ]
Dunn LM, Dunn DM. PPVT‐4 Manual . Bloomington, MN: NCS Pearson, Inc, 2007. [ Google Scholar ]

Ebrahim 1986

Ebrahim S, Barer D, Nouri F. Use of the Nottingham Health Profile with patients after stroke . Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 1986; 40 ( 2 ):166‐9. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Elsner 2012

Elsner B, Kugler J, Pohl M, Mehrholz J. Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) for improving aphasia in patients after stroke . Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2012, Issue 4 . [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009760.pub3] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

Enderby 2007

Enderby P. Therapy Outcomes Measures for Rehabilitation Professionals . Wiley, 2006. [ Google Scholar ]

Engelter 2006

Engelter ST, Gostynski M, Papa A, Frei M, Born C, Ajdacic‐Gross V, et al. Epidemiology of aphasia attributable to first ischemic stroke: incidence, severity, fluency, etiology, and thrombolysis . Stroke 2006; 37 ( 6 ):1379‐84. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Fink RB, Schwartz MF, Rochon E, Myers JL, Socolof GS, Bluestone R, et al. Picture description with structure modelling (PDSM): a procedure for measuring syntactic generalisation . Poster presented at Academy of Aphasia, Boston 1994.

Goldberg 1972

Goldberg D. The detection of psychiatric illness by questionnaire. Mandsley Monograph No 21 . London: Oxford University Press, 1972. [ Google Scholar ]

Goodglass 1972

Goodglass H, Kaplan E. Boston Diagnostic Aphasia Examination . Philadelphia: Lea and Febiger, 1972. [ Google Scholar ]

Goodglass 1983

Goodglass H, Kaplan E. The Assessment of Aphasia and Related Disorders . Philadelphia, PA: Lea and Febiger, 1983. [ Google Scholar ]

Greener 2001

Greener J, Enderby P, Whurr R. Pharmacological treatment for aphasia following stroke . Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2001, Issue 4 . [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000424] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

Higgins 2011

Higgins JPT, Green S (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011 . Available from www.cochrane‐handbook.org .

Hilari 2003

Hilari K, Byng S, Lamping DL, Smith SC. Stroke and Aphasia Quality of Life Scale‐39 (SAQOL‐39) ‐ evaluation of acceptability, reliability, and validity . Stroke 2003; 34 ( 8 ):1944‐50. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Hoffmann 2014

Hoffmann TC, Glasziou PP, Boutron I, Milne R, Perera R, Moher D, et al. Better reporting of interventions: template for intervention description and replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide . BMJ 2014; 348 ( g1687 ):1‐12. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Holland 1980

Holland A. Communicative Abilities in Daily Living . Baltimore: University Park Press, 1980. [ Google Scholar ]

Holland 1998

Holland A, Frattali C, Fromm D. Communication Activities of Daily Living . 2nd Edition. Austin Texas: Pro‐Ed, 1998. [ Google Scholar ]
Huber W, Poeck K, Weniger D, Willmes K. Der Aachener Aphasia Test . 1983 . [ PubMed ]
Huber E, Poeck K, Wilmes K. The Aachen Aphasia Test . In: Rose FC editor(s). Progress in Aphasiology . New York: Ravens Press, 1984:291‐303. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Kaplan 1983

Kaplan E, Goodglass H, Weintraub S. Boston Naming Test . Philadelphia, PA: Lea and Febiger, 1983. [ Google Scholar ]
Kay J, Lesser R, Coltheart M. Psycholinguistic Assessments of Language Processing in Aphasia . Hove: Psychology Press, 1992. [ Google Scholar ]

Kertesz 1982

Kertesz A. Western Aphasia Battery . New York: Grune and Stratton, 1982. [ Google Scholar ]

LaPointe 1979

LaPointe LL, Horner J. Reading Comprehension Battery for Aphasia . USA, 1979 . Tigard OR: CC Publications.
Laska AC, Hellblom A, Murray V, Kahan T, Arbin M. Aphasia in acute stroke and relation to outcome . Journal of Internal Medicine 2001; 249 ( 5 ):413‐22. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Lauterbach 2008

Lauterbach M, Martins IP, Garcia P, Cabeça J, Ferreira AC, Willmes K. Cross linguistic aphasia testing: the Portuguese version of the Aachen Aphasia Test (AAT) . Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society 2008; 14 ( 6 ):1046–56. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Lincoln 1982

Lomas J, Pickard L, Bester S, Elbard H, Finlayson A, Zoghaib C. The Communicative Effectiveness Index: development and psychometric evaluation of a functional communication measure for adults . Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders 1989; 54 ( 1 ):113‐24. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Long AF, Hesketh A, Paszek G, Booth M, Bowen A, the ACT NoW Research Study. Development of a reliable, self‐report outcome measure for pragmatic trials of communication therapy following stroke: the Communication Outcome After STroke (COAST) scale . Clinical Rehabilitation 2008; 22 ( 12 ):1083‐94. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Long A, Hesketh A, Bowen A, the ACT NoW Research Study. Communication outcome after stroke: a new measure of the carer's perspective . Clinical Rehabilitation 2009; 23 ( 9 ):846–56. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Maher L, Kendall D, Swearengin J, Rodriguez A, Leon S, Pingel K, et al. A pilot study of use‐dependent learning in the context of constraint induced language . Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society 2006; 12 ( 6 ):843‐52. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Meinzer 2005b

Meinzer M, Djunda D, Barthel G, Elbert T, Rockstroh B. Long‐term stability of improved language functions in chronic aphasia after constraint induced aphasia therapy . Stroke 2005; 36 ( 7 ):1462‐6. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Moher D, Schulz KF, Altman DG. The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel‐group randomised trials . Lancet 2001; 357 ( 9263 ):1191‐4. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Moss A, Nicholas M. Language rehabilitation in chronic aphasia and time post onset: a review of single‐subject data . Stroke 2006; 37 ( 12 ):3043‐51. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Nettleton 1991

Nettleton J, Lesser R. Therapy for naming difficulties in aphasia: application of a cognitive neuropsychological model . Journal of Neurolinguistics 1991; 6 ( 2 ):139‐57. [ Google Scholar ]

Nicholas 1993

Nicholas LE, Brookshire RH. A system for quantifying the informativeness and efficiency of the connected speech of adults with aphasia . Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 1993; 36 ( 2 ):338‐50. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Nicholas 1995

Nicholas L, Brookshire RH. Presence, completeness and accuracy of main concepts in the connected speech of non‐brain injured adults . Journal of Speech and Hearing Research 1995; 38 ( 1 ):145‐56. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Oldfield 1965

Oldfield RC, Wingfield A. A series of pictures for use in object naming . Psycholinguistics research unit, Special report No. PLU/65/19, Oxford 1965.

Oldfield 1971

Oldfield RC. The assessment and analysis of handedness: the Edinburgh inventory . Neuropsychologica 1971; 9 ( 1 ):97‐113. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Parr S, Byng S, Gilpin S, Ireland C. Talking about Aphasia: Living with Loss of Language after Stroke . Buckingham: OUP, 1997. [ Google Scholar ]
Porch B. Porch Index of Communicative Ability . Austin, TX: Pro‐Ed, 1967. [ Google Scholar ]
Porch BE. Porch Index of Communicative Ability . 2nd Edition. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists' Press, 1971. [ Google Scholar ]
Porch BE. Porch Index of Communicative Ability . 3rd Edition. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press, 1981. [ Google Scholar ]
Prins RS. Psycholinguistic aspects of aphasia diagnosis and therapy [Psycho Linguistische aspekten van afasie diagnostiek en therapie]. Gerontologie 1980; 11 ( 1 ):22‐8. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Raven JC. Coloured Progressive Matrices . London, UK: H.K. Lewis, 1976. [ Google Scholar ]

Raymer 1993

Raymer AM, Thompson C, Jacobs B, LeGrand H. A model‐driven analysis of generalisation effects for naming treatment in aphasia . Aphasiology 1993; 7 ( 1 ):27‐53. [ Google Scholar ]

Reinvang 1985

Reinvang I. Aphasia and Brain Organisation . Aphasia and Brain Organisation . New York: Plenum Press, 1985. [ Google Scholar ]

RevMan 2014 [Computer program]

The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration. Review Manager (RevMan) . Version 5.3. Copenhagen: The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2014.
Robey R. The efficacy of treatment for aphasic persons: a meta‐analysis . Brain and Language 1994; 47 ( 4 ):582‐608. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Robey 1998a

Robey R. A meta‐analysis of clinical outcomes in the treatment of aphasia . Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research 1998; 41 ( 1 ):172‐87. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Rodrigues 2006

Rodrigues I, Santos M, Leal G. [Validação de uma escala de depressão para afásicos: Stroke Aphasic Depression Questionnaire—SAD‐Q]. Sinapse 2006; 2 ( 6 ):506‐13. [ Google Scholar ]

Saffran 1988

Saffran EM, Schwartz MF, Linebarger M, Martin N, Bochetto P. The Philadelphia Comprehension Battery for aphasia . Unpublished manuscript 1988.

Salonen 1980

Salonen L. The language enriched individual therapy programme for aphasic patients . In: Sarno M, Höök O editor(s). Aphasia, Assessment and Treatment . Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell, 1980. [ Google Scholar ]
Sarno MT. The Functional Communication Profile: Manual of Directions . Vol. 42 , New York Institution of Rehabilitation Medicine, 1969. [ Google Scholar ]

Schegloff 2004

Schegloff EA. Putting the interaction back into dialogue. Open peer commentary . Behavioral and Brain Sciences 2004; 27 ( 2 ):207‐8. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Schegloff 2007

Schegloff EA. Sequence Organization in Interaction. A Primer in Conversation Analysis I . Cambridge, England: University Press, 2007. [ Google Scholar ]

Schuell 1965

Schuell H. Minnesota Test for Differential Diagnosis of Aphasia . Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 1965. [ Google Scholar ]

Schwartz 1994

Schwartz MF, Saffran EM, Fink RB, Myers JL, Martin N. Mapping therapy: a treatment programme for agrammatism . Aphasiology 1994; 8 ( 1 ):19‐54. [ Google Scholar ]

Shewan 1979

Shewan CM. The Auditory Comprehension Test for Sentences (ACTS) . Chicago II: Biolinguistics, 1979. [ Google Scholar ]

Shewan 1984

Snodgrass 1980.

Snodgrass JG, Vanderwart M. A standardized set of 260 pictures: norms for name agreement, image agreement, familiarity, and visual complexity . Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory 1980; 6 ( 2 ):174. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Soares 2004

Soares HP, Daniels S, Kumar A, Clarke M, Scott C, Swann S, et al. Bad reporting does not mean bad methods for randomised trials: observational study of randomised controlled trials performed by the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group . BMJ 2004; 328 ( 7430 ):22‐4. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Sparks 1974

Sparks R. Melodic Intonation Therapy: Methodology Manual . Melodic Intonation Therapy: Methodology Manual . Third Edition. Boston: Aphasia Research Section, Neurology Service, V.A. Hospital, November 1974. [ Google Scholar ]

Spreen 1969

Spreen O, Benton A. Neurosensory Center Comprehensive Examination for Aphasia . Victoria BC: Neuropsychology Laboratory, University of Victoria, 1969. [ Google Scholar ]

Stutcliffe 1998

Stutcliffe L, Lincoln N. The assessment of depression in aphasic stroke patients: the development of the Stroke Aphasic Depression Questionnaire . Clinical Rehabilitation 1998; 2155 ( 98 ):506‐13. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Swinburn 2004

Swinburn K, Porter G, Howard D. Comprehensive Aphasia Test . 1st Edition. Hove: Psychology Press, 2004. [ Google Scholar ]

Taylor 1959

Taylor M, Marks M. Aphasia Rehabilitation Manual and Therapy Kit . Aphasia Rehabilitation Manual and Therapy Kit . New York: McGraw‐Hill, 1959. [ Google Scholar ]

Thompson 2011

Thompson CK. Northwestern assessment of verbs and sentences . Evanston, IL: Northwestern University, 2011. [ Google Scholar ]

Thorndike 1944

Thorndike El, Lorge I. Teacher's word book of 30,000 words . New York: Teachers College, Columbia University, 1944. [ Google Scholar ]

Vermeulen 1979

Vermeulen J. Psychometrische Eigenschappen Van de AAT . Aphasia Center, St. Lucas Ziekenhuis, 1979. [ Google Scholar ]

Visch‐Brink 1996

Visch‐Brink EG, Denes G, Stronks D. Visual and verbal semantic processing in aphasia . Brain and Language 1996; 55 ( 1 ):130‐2. [ Google Scholar ]

Visch‐Brink 1997

Visch‐Brink EG, Bajema IM, Sandt‐Koenderman ME. Lexical semantic therapy: BOX . Aphasiology 1997; 11 ( 11 ):1057‐78. [ Google Scholar ]

Visch‐Brink 2001

Visch‐Brink EG, Bajema IM. BOX:Een semantisch therapie programma [BOX: A semantic therapy program . BOX:Een semantisch therapie programma . Lisse, the Netherlands: Swets and Zeitlinger, 2001. [ Google Scholar ]
Wertz R, Weiss WG, Aten JL, Brookshire RH, Garcia‐Bunuel L, Holland AL, et al. Comparison of clinic, home and deferred language treatment . Archives of Neurology 1986; 43 ( 7 ):653‐8. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Yao J, Xue F, Li F. Clinical application research on collective language strengthened training in rehabilitation nursing of cerebral apoplexy patients with aphasia . Chinese Nursing Research 2005; 19 ( 3B ):482‐4. [ Google Scholar ]

Zuckerman 1965

Zuckerman M, Lubin B. Manual for the Multiple Affect Adjective Checklist . San Diego, California: Educational and Industrial Testing Service, 1965. [ Google Scholar ]

References to other published versions of this review

Brady MC, Kelly H, Godwin J, Enderby P. Speech and language therapy for aphasia following stroke . Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2012. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Greener 1999

Greener J, Enderby P, Whurr R. Speech and language therapy for aphasia following stroke . Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 1999, Issue 4 . [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000425] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Kelly H, Brady MC, Enderby P. Speech and language therapy for aphasia following stroke . Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2010, Issue 5 . [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000425.pub2] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

IMAGES

Key Journals
Publications
SA-online
👍 Research topics speech language pathology. Research. 2019-02-11
Audiology and Speech Pathology
(PDF) The challenges in making speech pathology practice evidence based

VIDEO

2024 Undergraduate Speech Pathology Speech Marquette University
How SLPs can keep up-to-date with speech pathology research
Pathology Research and Teaching Rounds
Speech Pathology Materials Supplier
Speech Pathology Australia
UC Irvine Professor Julie Washington Discusses Latest Research on Language Variation

COMMENTS

American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology
American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology Research Article 16 May 2024. The Perspectives of Haitian Parents on Heritage Language Maintenance. Jessica Jocelyn, Martine Elie, Jay R. Lucker, Ovetta L. H. Harris and ; Sulare Telford Rose; American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology Tutorial 16 May 2024.
Peruse the 12 Most-Read Articles for SLPs in 2021
Peruse the 12 Most-Read Articles for SLPs in 2021. January 5, 2022. As you begin new year, enjoy a look back at these 12 Leader articles that were widely viewed by speech-language pathologists and other communication sciences and disorders professionals last year. (Also see the most popular audiology articles, published earlier this week.)
Evidence-Based Practice in Speech-Language Pathology: Where Are We Now?
A committee of the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA) on evidence-based practice (EBP) was formed in 2004 to review clinical practices in the field at that time. The committee established the following position statement regarding EBP: "An approach in which current, high-quality research evidence is integrated with ...
Treating Childhood Speech Sound Disorders: Current Approaches to
The research participation opportunity was advertised through special interest groups, online speech pathology forums, Speech Pathology Australia's National e-News (an online newsletter distributed electronically by Speech Pathology Australia to all practicing members) and at private practices within a 20-km radius of La Trobe University's ...
Latest articles from Advances in Speech Language Pathology
Effect of expiratory muscle strength training on voice and speech: An exploratory study in persons with Parkinson's disease or multiple sclerosis. Malin Antonsson, Kerstin Johansson, Anna Bonde Dalemo, Cornelia Ivehorn Axelsson, Åsa Burge, Ulrike Lesueur & Lena Hartelius. Published online: 03 Oct 2023.
Effect of Complexity on Speech Sound Development: Evidence From Meta
Speech language pathology as a profession is relatively young, and it has a shorter research tradition compared to other disciplines such as medicine (Dodd, 2008). Thus, it is unsurprising to find it lacking in the highest level of evidence and accumulation of case studies in the available literature.
SLP Articles
20Q: Induced Laryngeal Obstruction - An Overview for Speech-Language Pathologists. Robert Brinton Fujiki, PhD, CCC-SLP. November 13, 2023. The nature of induced laryngeal obstruction, as well as the speech-language pathologist's role in treating this disorder, are described in this course.
Full article: Special issue: Qualitative research and innovation in
This special issue starts with a lead paper, New perspectives, theory, method, and practice: Qualitative research and innovation in speech-language pathology (Hersh et al., 2022 ), which explains the notion of innovation, its relationship to qualitative research, and its influence on theory, methodology and practice in speech-language pathology ...
The perspectives of speech-language pathologists: Providing teletherapy
Consequently, this results in a lack of research on the provision of speech, language and swallowing intervention using teletherapy after a stroke from an SLP point of view. ... Multiple stakeholder perspectives on teletherapy delivery of speech pathology services in rural schools: A preliminary, qualitative investigation. International Journal ...
Research in Speech-Language Pathology and Audiology
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association 2200 Research Blvd., Rockville, MD 20850 Members: 800-498-2071 Non-Member: 800-638-8255. MORE WAYS TO CONNECT. E-mail the Action Center Contact the Board of Directors
18092 PDFs
Explore the latest full-text research PDFs, articles, conference papers, preprints and more on SPEECH LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY. Find methods information, sources, references or conduct a literature ...
What Is Clinical Evidence in Speech-Language Pathology? A Scoping
Recommendations from the preeminent models of evidence-based practice (EBP) in speech-language pathology (American Speech-Language-Hearing Association [ASHA], n.d.-a, 2004a, 2004b; Dollaghan, 2007) suggest that clinicians should identify and critically appraise evidence from research, clinical, and patient sources, and then integrate these to ...
Publications
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association 2200 Research Blvd., Rockville, MD 20850 Members: 800-498-2071 Non-Member: 800-638-8255. MORE WAYS TO CONNECT. E-mail the Action Center Contact the Board of Directors
The Informed SLP
The latest clinical research and evidence-based therapy ideas for SLPs. Read or listen to earn ASHA CEUs. Try for free. Join for full access. ... Stay informed as a speech-language pathologist. With monthly summaries and a quick-search database of the latest research. 20,460 members. rely on us.
Collaboration Between Child Play Therapy and Speech-Language Pathology
It has been well documented that a significant number of children with developmental language disorders (DLDs) also exhibit challenging behaviors. In this study, a new intervention (Play and Language [PAL]) was developed through a research collaboration between a speech-language pathologist and a play therapist.
Language and Speech: Sage Journals
Language and Speech is a peer-reviewed journal which provides an international forum for communication among researchers in the disciplines that contribute to our understanding of human production, perception, processing, learning, use, and disorders of speech and language. The journal accepts reports of original research in all these areas. Interdisciplinary submissions are e
Speech and language therapy interventions for children with primary
Description of the condition. Speech and/or language disorders are amongst the most common developmental difficulties in childhood. Such difficulties are termed 'primary' if they have no known aetiology, and 'secondary' if they are caused by another condition such as autism, hearing impairment, general developmental difficulties, behavioural or emotional difficulties or neurological impairment ...
"The Adverse Childhood Experiences Identification Gap in Speech Languag
Children exposed to adverse childhood experiences, a variety of potentially traumatic events occurring within the first 18 years of life, are at increased risk for speech and language disorders. Due to the high prevalence of trauma and its lasting effects, it is almost guaranteed that children who are experiencing the ongoing effects from adversity will be found on practicing Speech Language ...
Navigating a Speech-Language Pathology Education as an International
Jiahe: In my case, the speech-language pathology major in my home country (China) was underdeveloped, and I sought more systematic and scientific training to enhance my clinical and research skills. Edward: I wanted to combine my interests in language and medicine, which led me to explore speech-language pathology as a viable career path. While ...
Speech and language therapy for aphasia following stroke
The social support and stimulation interventions were provided by paid visitors not previously known to the participants with aphasia (ACTNoW 2011; David 1982), nursing staff (Shewan 1984ii; Shewan 1984iii), speech and language therapists or speech and language therapy students (Lincoln 1982iii; Woolf 2015ii; Woolf 2015iii), a trained research ...
Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research
A Meta-Analysis of Anomia Treatment in Bilingual Aphasia: Within- and Cross-Language Generalization and Predictors of the Treatment Outcomes. Seongsil Lee and. Yasmeen Faroqi-Shah. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing ResearchResearch Article7 May 2024.
Latest articles from International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology
Effect of expiratory muscle strength training on voice and speech: An exploratory study in persons with Parkinson's disease or multiple sclerosis. Malin Antonsson, Kerstin Johansson, Anna Bonde Dalemo, Cornelia Ivehorn Axelsson, Åsa Burge, Ulrike Lesueur & Lena Hartelius. Published online: 03 Oct 2023.
5 things your speech language pathologists want you to know
Here are some other things that set UAB apart. 1. There is a lot going on. "Often people think about the profession of speech pathology as only working with children on articulation issues — that is, children who can't say the 'r' sound," Boswell said. "That is something we do as a profession, but there is so much more out there ...