Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24059983›Full record

Trial reportTrials2013

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.

Annette Baumgaertner, Tanja Grewe, Wolfram Ziegler, Agnes Floel, Luise Springer, Peter Martus, Caterina Breitenstein

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Trials, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT01540383 (From Controlled Experimental Trial to Everyday Communication), which is not on this map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 21% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT01540383 nacompletednot on this map

From Controlled Experimental Trial to Everyday Communication: How Effective is Intensive Aphasia Therapy Under Routine Clinical Conditions?

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity Hospital MuensterRan2012 to 2015Enrolled156ConditionsAphasia, StrokeArmsIntensive integrative aphasia therapy, Waiting list control group
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 23 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Speech and language therapy for aphasia following stroke.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2016
    Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Annette BaumgaertnerFaculty of Health and Social Sciences, Fresenius University of Applied Sciences, Alte Rabenstraße 2, 20148 Hamburg, Germany. baumgaertner@hs-fresenius.de.
Tanja Grewe
Wolfram Ziegler
Agnes Floel
Luise Springer
Peter Martus
Caterina Breitenstein
Hochschule Fresenius · DECharité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin · DEUniversity of Münster · DEUniversity of Tübingen · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTherapy guidelines recommend speech and language therapy (SLT) as the "gold standard" for aphasia treatment. Treatment intensity (i.e., ≥5 hours of SLT per week) is a key predictor of SLT outcome. The scientific evidence to support the efficacy of SLT is unsatisfactory to date given the lack of randomized controlled trials (RCT), particularly with respect to chronic aphasia (lasting for >6 months after initial stroke). This randomized waiting list-controlled multi-centre trial examines whether intensive integrative language therapy provided in routine in- and outpatient clinical settings is effective in improving everyday communication in chronic post-stroke aphasia. METHODS/

designParticipants are men and women aged 18 to 70 years, at least 6 months post an ischemic or haemorrhagic stroke resulting in persisting language impairment (i.e., chronic aphasia); 220 patients will be screened for participation, with the goal of including at least 126 patients during the 26-month recruitment period. Basic language production and comprehension abilities need to be preserved (as assessed by the Aachen Aphasia Test).Therapy consists of language-systematic and communicative-pragmatic exercises for at least 2 hours/day and at least 10 hours/week, plus at least 1 hour self-administered training per day, for at least three weeks. Contents of therapy are adapted to patients' individual impairment profiles.Prior to and immediately following the therapy/waiting period, patients' individual language abilities are assessed via primary and secondary outcome measures. The primary (blinded) outcome measure is the A-scale (informational content, or 'understandability', of the message) of the Amsterdam-Nijmegen Everyday Language Test (ANELT), a standardized measure of functional communication ability. Secondary (unblinded) outcome measures are language-systematic and communicative-pragmatic language screenings and questionnaires assessing life quality as viewed by the patient as well as a relative.The primary analysis tests for differences between the therapy group and an untreated (waiting list) control group with respect to pre- versus post 3-week-therapy (or waiting period, respectively) scores on the ANELT A-scale. Statistical between-group comparisons of primary and secondary outcome measures will be conducted in intention-to-treat analyses.Long-term stability of treatment effects will be assessed six months post intensive SLT (primary and secondary endpoints).

trial registrationRegistered in ClinicalTrials.gov with the Identifier NCT01540383.

Indexed as

LanguageResearch DesignStroke RehabilitationAdolescentAdultAgedAphasiaChronic DiseaseClinical ProtocolsFemaleGermanyHumansIntention to Treat AnalysisLanguage TherapyMaleMiddle Aged

Identifiers

PMID24059983
PMCPMC3850954
OpenAlexW2121228902

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.