Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33233972›Full record

Trial reportClinical rehabilitation2021

Self-managed, computerised word finding therapy as an add-on to usual care for chronic aphasia post-stroke: An economic evaluation.

Nicholas R Latimer, Arjun Bhadhuri, Abualbishr Alshreef, Rebecca Palmer, Elizabeth Cross, Munyaradzi Dimairo, Steven Julious, Cindy Cooper, Pam Enderby, Marian C Brady and 3 more

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Clinical rehabilitation, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Aphasia-specific or generic outcomes? a comparison of two health-related quality of life instruments for economic evaluations of aphasia treatments.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2025
    Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Economic Evaluations of Speech and Language Therapy Interventions: A Scoping Review.International journal of language & communication disorders
    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

13 authors.

Nicholas R LatimerScHARR, The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5304-5585
Arjun BhadhuriScHARR, The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.
Abualbishr AlshreefScHARR, The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.
Rebecca PalmerScHARR, The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.
Elizabeth CrossScHARR, The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.
Munyaradzi DimairoScHARR, The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.
Steven JuliousScHARR, The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.
Cindy CooperScHARR, The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.
Pam EnderbyScHARR, The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.
Marian C BradyNMAHP Research Unit, Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4589-7021
Audrey BowenDivision of Neuroscience & Experimental Psychology, FBMH, University of Manchester, MAHSC, Manchester, UK.
Ellen BradleyScHARR, The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.
Madeleine HarrisonScHARR, The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.

Funding

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

Abstract

objectiveTo examine the cost-effectiveness of self-managed computerised word finding therapy as an add-on to usual care for people with aphasia post-stroke.

designCost-effectiveness modelling over a life-time period, taking a UK National Health Service (NHS) and personal social service perspective.

settingBased on the Big CACTUS randomised controlled trial, conducted in 21 UK NHS speech and language therapy departments.

participantsBig CACTUS included 278 people with long-standing aphasia post-stroke.

interventionsComputerised word finding therapy plus usual care; usual care alone; usual care plus attention control. MAIN MEASURES: Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) were calculated, comparing the cost per quality adjusted life year (QALY) gained for each intervention. Credible intervals (CrI) for costs and QALYs, and probabilities of cost-effectiveness, were obtained using probabilistic sensitivity analysis. Subgroup and scenario analyses investigated cost-effectiveness in different subsets of the population, and the sensitivity of results to key model inputs.

resultsAdding computerised word finding therapy to usual care had an ICER of £42,686 per QALY gained compared with usual care alone (incremental QALY gain: 0.02 per patient (95% CrI: -0.05 to 0.10); incremental costs: £732.73 per patient (95% CrI: £674.23 to £798.05)). ICERs for subgroups with mild or moderate word finding difficulties were £22,371 and £21,262 per QALY gained respectively.

conclusionComputerised word finding therapy represents a low cost add-on to usual care, but QALY gains and estimates of cost-effectiveness are uncertain. Computerised therapy is more likely to be cost-effective for people with mild or moderate, as opposed to severe, word finding difficulties.

Indexed as

AphasiaChronic DiseaseCost-Benefit AnalysisHumansLanguage TherapyQuality-Adjusted Life YearsSelf-ManagementState MedicineStrokeTherapy, Computer-AssistedUnited KingdomAphasiacomputer supportedcost-effectivenessCost-EffectivenessHealth ServicesRehabilitationself-managementspeech therapyTreatment

Identifiers

PMID33233972
PMCPMC8073872

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.