Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32369007›Full record

Trial reportHealth technology assessment (Winchester, England)2020

Computerised speech and language therapy or attention control added to usual care for people with long-term post-stroke aphasia: the Big CACTUS three-arm RCT.

Rebecca Palmer, Munyaradzi Dimairo, Nicholas Latimer, Elizabeth Cross, Marian Brady, Pam Enderby, Audrey Bowen, Steven Julious, Madeleine Harrison, Abualbishr Alshreef and 7 more

Open access · diamondAbstract readPragmatic Clinical TrialRandomized Controlled TrialEquivalence Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Health technology assessment (Winchester, England), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
3.1field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

25 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 49 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Telerehabilitation services for stroke.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2020
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Point-of-care tools to support optometric care provision to people with age-related macular degeneration: A randomised, placebo-controlled trial.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2022
    Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. BMJ open · 2024
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Music Therapy in Global Aphasia: A Case Report.Medicines (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023
    Article
  20. Article
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

17 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Rebecca PalmerSchool of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-2335-7104
Munyaradzi DimairoSchool of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-9311-6920
Nicholas LatimerSchool of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-5304-5585
Elizabeth CrossSchool of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-7976-8463
Marian BradyNursing, Midwifery and Allied Health Professions Research Unit, Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-4589-7021
Pam EnderbySchool of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-4371-9053
Audrey BowenDivision of Neuroscience & Experimental Psychology, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-4075-1215
Steven JuliousSchool of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-9917-7636
Madeleine HarrisonSchool of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-9874-921X
Abualbishr AlshreefSchool of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-2737-1365
Ellen BradleySchool of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-4147-3627
Arjun BhadhuriSchool of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-1220-0731
Tim ChaterSchool of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-1138-0147
Helen HughesSchool of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-1069-9922
Helen WittsSchool of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-5177-7117
Esther HerbertSchool of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-1224-5457
Cindy CooperSchool of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-2995-5447
University of Sheffield · GBDerbyshire Community Health Services NHS Foundation Trust · GBGlasgow Caledonian University · GBManchester Academic Health Science Centre · GBSheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust · GB

Funding

Department of Health 12/21/01
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPeople with aphasia may improve their communication with speech and language therapy many months/years after stroke. However, NHS speech and language therapy reduces in availability over time post stroke.

objectiveThis trial evaluated the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of self-managed computerised speech and language therapy to provide additional therapy.

designA pragmatic, superiority, single-blind, parallel-group, individually randomised (stratified block randomisation, stratified by word-finding severity and site) adjunct trial.

settingTwenty-one UK NHS speech and language therapy departments.

participantsPeople with post-stroke aphasia (diagnosed by a speech and language therapist) with long-standing (> 4 months) word-finding difficulties.

interventionsThe groups were (1) usual care; (2) daily self-managed computerised word-finding therapy tailored by speech and language therapists and supported by volunteers/speech and language therapy assistants for 6 months plus usual care (computerised speech and language therapy); and (3) activity/attention control (completion of puzzles and receipt of telephone calls from a researcher for 6 months) plus usual care.

main outcome measuresCo-primary outcomes - change in ability to find treated words of personal relevance in a bespoke naming test (impairment) and change in functional communication in conversation rated on the activity scale of the Therapy Outcome Measures (activity) 6 months after randomisation. A key secondary outcome was participant-rated perception of communication and quality of life using the Communication Outcomes After Stroke questionnaire at 6 months. Outcomes were assessed by speech and language therapists using standardised procedures. Cost-effectiveness was estimated using treatment costs and an accessible EuroQol-5 Dimensions, five-level version, measuring quality-adjusted life-years.

resultsA total of 818 patients were assessed for eligibility and 278 participants were randomised between October 2014 and August 2016. A total of 240 participants (86 usual care, 83 computerised speech and language therapy, 71 attention control) contributed to modified intention-to-treat analysis at 6 months. The mean improvements in word-finding were 1.1% (standard deviation 11.2%) for usual care, 16.4% (standard deviation 15.3%) for computerised speech and language therapy and 2.4% (standard deviation 8.8%) for attention control. Computerised speech and language therapy improved word-finding 16.2% more than usual care did (95% confidence interval 12.7% to 19.6%; LIMITATIONS: This trial excluded non-English-language speakers, the accessible EuroQol-5 Dimensions, five-level version, was not validated and the measurement of attention control fidelity was limited.

conclusionsComputerised speech and language therapy enabled additional self-managed speech and language therapy, contributing to significant improvement in finding personally relevant words (as specifically targeted by computerised speech and language therapy) long term post stroke. Gains did not lead to improvements in conversation or quality of life. Cost-effectiveness is uncertain owing to uncertainty around the quality-adjusted life-year gain, but computerised speech and language therapy may be more cost-effective for participants with mild and moderate word-finding difficulties. Exploring ways of helping people with aphasia to use new words in functional communication contexts is a priority.

trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN68798818.

fundingThis project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in

Indexed as

Language TherapySpeech TherapyTherapy, Computer-AssistedAdultAgedAphasiaCost-Benefit AnalysisFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedQuality-Adjusted Life YearsSingle-Blind MethodStrokeUnited KingdomAPHASIACOMPUTERSHEALTH CARE COSTSLANGUAGE THERAPYSELF-MANAGEMENTSTROKE

Identifiers

PMID32369007
PMCPMC7232133
OpenAlexW3021035864

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.