Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35396340›Full record

Trial reportJournal of neurology, neurosurgery, and psychiatry2022

Results of the COMPARE trial of Constraint-induced or Multimodality Aphasia Therapy compared with usual care in chronic post-stroke aphasia.

Miranda L Rose, Lyndsey Nickels, David Copland, Leanne Togher, Erin Godecke, Marcus Meinzer, Tapan Rai, Dominique A Cadilhac, Joosup Kim, Melanie Hurley and 5 more

Open access · hybridAbstract readClinical Trial, Phase IIIMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Journal of neurology, neurosurgery, and psychiatry, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
6.5field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

26 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 57 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Guideline
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. 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
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  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

15 authors at 8 institutions in 2 countries.

Miranda L RoseAllied Health, Human Services and Sport, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia m.rose@latrobe.edu.au.ORCID 0000-0002-8892-0965
Lyndsey NickelsSchool of Psychological Sciences, Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-0311-3524
David CoplandHealth and Rehabilitation Sciences, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-2257-4270
Leanne TogherFaculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-4518-6748
Erin GodeckeEdith Cowan University, Joondalup, Western Australia, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-7210-1295
Marcus MeinzerDepartment of Neurology, University Medicine Greifswald, Greifswald, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-1370-3947
Tapan RaiUniversity of Technology Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-1610-8983
Dominique A CadilhacStroke and Ageing Research, Monash University Faculty of Medicine Nursing and Health Sciences, Clayton, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-8162-682X
Joosup KimStroke and Ageing Research, Monash University Faculty of Medicine Nursing and Health Sciences, Clayton, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-4079-0428
Melanie HurleyCentre of Research Excellence in Aphasia Recovery and Rehabilitation, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-5400-2744
Abby FosterCentre of Research Excellence in Aphasia Recovery and Rehabilitation, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-7787-8765
Marcella CarragherCentre of Research Excellence in Aphasia Recovery and Rehabilitation, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-7200-6968
Cassie WilcoxCentre of Research Excellence in Aphasia Recovery and Rehabilitation, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
John E PierceCentre of Research Excellence in Aphasia Recovery and Rehabilitation, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-5164-5106
Gillian SteelCentre of Research Excellence in Aphasia Recovery and Rehabilitation, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-8499-2259
La Trobe University · AUMonash University · AUEdith Cowan University · AUMacquarie University · AUThe University of Queensland · AUThe University of Sydney · AUUniversitätsmedizin Greifswald · DEUniversity of Technology Sydney · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWhile meta-analyses confirm treatment for chronic post-stroke aphasia is effective, a lack of comparative evidence for different interventions limits prescription accuracy. We investigated whether Constraint-Induced Aphasia Therapy Plus (CIAT-plus) and/or Multimodality Aphasia Therapy (M-MAT) provided greater therapeutic benefit compared with usual community care and were differentially effective according to baseline aphasia severity.

methodsWe conducted a three-arm, multicentre, parallel group, open-label, blinded endpoint, phase III, randomised-controlled trial. We stratified eligible participants by baseline aphasia on the Western Aphasia Battery-Revised Aphasia Quotient (WAB-R-AQ). Groups of three participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to 30 hours of CIAT-Plus or M-MAT or to usual care (UC). Primary outcome was change in aphasia severity (WAB-R-AQ) from baseline to therapy completion analysed in the intention-to-treat population. Secondary outcomes included word retrieval, connected speech, functional communication, multimodal communication, quality of life and costs.

resultsWe analysed 201 participants (70 in CIAT-Plus, 70 in M-MAT and 61 in UC). Aphasia severity was not significantly different between groups at postintervention: 1.05 points (95% CI -0.78 to 2.88; p=0.36) UC group vs CIAT-Plus; 1.06 points (95% CI -0.78 to 2.89; p=0.36) UC group vs M-MAT; 0.004 points (95% CI -1.76 to 1.77; p=1.00) CIAT-Plus vs M-MAT. Word retrieval, functional communication and communication-related quality of life were significantly improved following CIAT-Plus and M-MAT. Word retrieval benefits were maintained at 12-week follow-up.

conclusionsCIAT-Plus and M-MAT were effective for word retrieval, functional communication, and quality of life, while UC was not. Future studies should explore predictive characteristics of responders and impacts of maintenance doses. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN 2615000618550.

Indexed as

AphasiaStroke RehabilitationHumansLanguage TherapyQuality of LifeTreatment Outcomeaphasiarandomised trialsrehabilitationstroke

Identifiers

PMID35396340
PMCPMC9148985
OpenAlexW4223605536

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.