ReviewInternational journal of nursing sciences2020
Constraint-induced aphasia therapy for patients with aphasia: A systematic review.
Review in International journal of nursing sciences, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Effect of three rehabilitation methods combined with transcranial electromagnetic stimulation on post-stroke aphasia: a RCT network meta-analysis.Frontiers in neurology · 2025Pooled it
- Effect of mobile application types on stroke rehabilitation: a systematic review.Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation · 2023Pooled it
- Results of the COMPARE trial of Constraint-induced or Multimodality Aphasia Therapy compared with usual care in chronic post-stroke aphasia.Journal of neurology, neurosurgery, and psychiatry · 2022Trial
- Communication makes intensive language therapy more efficient: a randomized controlled trial in chronic post-stroke aphasia.Brain communications · 2026Article
- Profiling the expression and functional roles of mRNAs and lncRNAs associated with post-stroke aphasia.Frontiers in molecular neuroscience · 2025Article
- Current status of Tele-speech language therapy by type and support for patients with post-stroke aphasia: A scoping review.PloS one · 2025Article
- AI and Aphasia in the Digital Age: A Critical Review.Brain sciences · 2024Review
- Psychometric Testing of the CEECCA Questionnaire to Assess Ability to Communicate among Individuals with Aphasia.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023Article
- Acquired Brain Injury in Adults: A Review of Pathophysiology, Recovery, and Rehabilitation.Perspectives of the ASHA special interest groups · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis study aimed to systematically evaluate the effects of constraint-induced aphasia therapy (CIAT) for aphasic patients reported by randomized controlled trials.
methodsRelevant randomized controlled trials were retrieved from 11 electronic databases. A methodological quality assessment was conducted in accordance with the Cochrane Handbook, and meta-analyses were performed by using RevMan 5.2. A descriptive analysis was conducted when the included trials were not suitable for a meta-analysis.
resultsA total of 12 trials were included. A statistically significant group difference was shown from the meta-analysis in the results measured by the Western Aphasia Battery (random-effects model,
conclusionThis systematic review indicated that CIAT was efficient for improving language performance with regard to naming, comprehension, repetition, written language, and oral language based on the current evidence. And this review provides some meaningful guides for clinical practice: expand the therapy duration to 2 or 3 h per day, focus on naming, and choose the best assessment tool. It also indicates a need for more rigorous, large-scale, and high-quality trials in the future.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.