Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31397288›Full record

Trial reportThe Lancet. Neurology2019

Self-managed, computerised speech and language therapy for patients with chronic aphasia post-stroke compared with usual care or attention control (Big CACTUS): a multicentre, single-blinded, randomised controlled trial.

Rebecca Palmer, Munyaradzi Dimairo, Cindy Cooper, Pam Enderby, Marian Brady, Audrey Bowen, Nicholas Latimer, Steven Julious, Elizabeth Cross, Abualbishr Alshreef and 4 more

Registry-linked trialOpen access · hybridAbstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled TrialPragmatic Clinical Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in The Lancet. Neurology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06403475 (Transcutaneous Vagus Nerve Stimulation for Language Recovery After Stroke), which is not on this map. Cited by 76 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
76citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
15.6field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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.

NCT06403475 narecruitingnot on this mapstarted 2024, after this paper: background citation

Transcutaneous Vagus Nerve Stimulation for Language Recovery After Stroke: a Pilot Study

TypeinterventionalSponsorSheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation TrustRan2024 to 2027Enrolled36ConditionsAphasia, Chronic StrokeArmsTranscutaneous Vagus Nerve Stimulation, Sham Transcutaneous Vagus Nerve Stimulation, Computer Based Speech and Language Therapy (Step by Step)
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

76 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 190 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Guideline
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Multisensory cueing facilitates naming in aphasia.Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation · 2020
    Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

16 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Rebecca PalmerDeparment of Health Service Research, School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.
Munyaradzi DimairoClinical Trials Research Unit (CTRU), ScHARR, The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.
Cindy CooperClinical Trials Research Unit (CTRU), ScHARR, The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK. Electronic address: c.l.cooper@sheffield.ac.uk.
Pam EnderbyDeparment of Health Service Research, School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.
Marian BradyNursing, Midwifery and Allied Health Professions Research Unit, Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, UK.
Audrey BowenDivision of Neuroscience and Experimental Psychology, The University of Manchester MAHSC, Manchester, UK.
Nicholas LatimerDepartment of Health Economics and Decision Science, School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.
Steven JuliousDepartment of Design, Trials and Statistics, School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.
Elizabeth CrossClinical Trials Research Unit (CTRU), ScHARR, The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.
Abualbishr AlshreefDepartment of Health Economics and Decision Science, School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.
Madeleine HarrisonDeparment of Health Service Research, School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.
Ellen BradleyClinical Trials Research Unit (CTRU), ScHARR, The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.
Helen WittsDeparment of Health Service Research, School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK; Speech and Language Therapy, Derbyshire Community Health Services NHS Foundation Trust, Chesterfield, UK.
Tim ChaterClinical Trials Research Unit (CTRU), ScHARR, The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.
University of Sheffield · GBGlasgow Caledonian University · GBUniversity of Manchester · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPost-stroke aphasia might improve over many years with speech and language therapy; however speech and language therapy is often less readily available beyond a few months after stroke. We assessed self-managed computerised speech and language therapy (CSLT) as a means of providing more therapy than patients can access through usual care alone.

methodsIn this pragmatic, superiority, three-arm, individually randomised, single-blind, parallel group trial, patients were recruited from 21 speech and language therapy departments in the UK. Participants were aged 18 years or older and had been diagnosed with aphasia post-stroke at least 4 months before randomisation; they were excluded if they had another premorbid speech and language disorder caused by a neurological deficit other than stroke, required treatment in a language other than English, or if they were currently using computer-based word-finding speech therapy. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to either 6 months of usual care (usual care group), daily self-managed CSLT plus usual care (CSLT group), or attention control plus usual care (attention control group) with the use of computer-generated stratified blocked randomisation (randomly ordered blocks of sizes three and six, stratified by site and severity of word finding at baseline based on CAT Naming Objects test scores). Only the outcome assessors and trial statistician were masked to the treatment allocation. The speech and language therapists who were doing the outcome assessments were different from those informing participants about which group they were assigned to and from those delivering all interventions. The statistician responsible for generating the randomisation schedule was separate from those doing the analysis. Co-primary outcomes were the change in ability to retrieve personally relevant words in a picture naming test (with 10% mean difference in change considered a priori as clinically meaningful) and the change in functional communication ability measured by masked ratings of video-recorded conversations, with the use of Therapy Outcome Measures (TOMs), between baseline and 6 months after randomisation (with a standardised mean difference in change of 0·45 considered a priori as clinically meaningful). Primary analysis was based on the modified intention-to-treat (mITT) population, which included randomly assigned patients who gave informed consent and excluded those without 6-month outcome measures. Safety analysis included all participants. This trial has been completed and was registered with the ISRCTN, number ISRCTN68798818.

findingsFrom Oct 20, 2014, to Aug 18, 2016, 818 patients were assessed for eligibility, of which 278 (34%) participants were randomly assigned (101 [36%] to the usual care group; 97 [35%] to the CSLT group; 80 [29%] to the attention control group). 86 patients in the usual care group, 83 in the CSLT group, and 71 in the attention control group contributed to the mITT. Mean word finding improvements were 1·1% (SD 11·2) in the usual care group, 16·4% (15·3) in the CSLT group, and 2·4% (8·8) in the attention control group. Word finding improvement was 16·2% (95% CI 12·7 to 19·6; p<0·0001) higher in the CSLT group than in the usual care group and was 14·4% (10·8 to 18·1) higher than in the attention control group. Mean changes in TOMs were 0·05 (SD 0·59) in the usual care group (n=84), 0·04 (0·58) in the CSLT group (n=81), and 0·10 (0·61) in the attention control group (n=68); the mean difference in change between the CSLT and usual care groups was -0·03 (-0·21 to 0·14; p=0·709) and between the CSLT and attention control groups was -0·01 (-0·20 to 0·18). The incidence of serious adverse events per year were rare with 0·23 events in the usual care group, 0·11 in the CSLT group, and 0·16 in the attention control group. 40 (89%) of 45 serious adverse events were unrelated to trial activity and the remaining five (11%) of 45 serious adverse events were classified as unlikely to be related to trial activity.

interpretationCSLT plus usual care resulted in a clinically significant improvement in personally relevant word finding but did not result in an improvement in conversation. Future studies should explore ways to generalise new vocabulary to conversation for patients with chronic aphasia post-stroke.

fundingNational Institute for Health Research, Tavistock Trust for Aphasia.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAged, 80 and overAphasiaAttentionFemaleHumansLanguage TherapyMaleMiddle AgedSingle-Blind MethodSpeech TherapyStrokeStroke RehabilitationTreatment OutcomeYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID31397288
PMCPMC6700375
OpenAlexW2950366686

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.