Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35422175›Full record

SynthesisInternational journal of stroke : official journal of the International Stroke Society2022

Precision rehabilitation for aphasia by patient age, sex, aphasia severity, and time since stroke? A prespecified, systematic review-based, individual participant data, network, subgroup meta-analysis.

RELEASE Collaborators, Marian C Brady, Myzoon Ali, Kathryn VandenBerg, Linda J Williams, Louise R Williams, Masahiro Abo, Frank Becker, Audrey Bowen, Caitlin Brandenburg and 59 more

Open access · hybridAbstract readSystematic ReviewNetwork Meta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in International journal of stroke : official journal of the International Stroke Society, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
4.1field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 38 citations in OpenAlex.

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

69 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

RELEASE Collaborators
Kathryn VandenBergORCID 0000-0001-5035-9650
Louise R WilliamsORCID 0000-0003-2430-1142
Caitlin BrandenburgORCID 0000-0002-6992-7790
Caterina BreitensteinORCID 0000-0002-6408-873X
Tamara B CranfillORCID 0000-0001-7608-6443
Marie di Pietro-BachmannORCID 0000-0001-8027-2337
Joanne FillinghamORCID 0000-0002-0363-8021
Federica Lucia GalliORCID 0000-0001-9244-9179
Marialuisa GandolfiORCID 0000-0002-0877-4807
Jacqueline HinckleyORCID 0000-0002-4052-1420
Elizabeth JefferiesORCID 0000-0002-3826-4330
Anthony Pak-Hin KongORCID 0000-0002-6211-0358
Matthew A Lambon RalphORCID 0000-0001-5907-2488
Ann Charlotte LaskaORCID 0000-0002-7330-940X
Béatrice LeemannORCID 0000-0003-2226-6777
Rebecca Shisler MarshallORCID 0000-0001-9313-5454
Ilias PapathanasiouORCID 0000-0003-0999-696X
Isabel Pavão MartinsORCID 0000-0002-9611-7400
Tatjana Prizl JakovacORCID 0000-0002-5018-9556
Ilona Rubi-FessenORCID 0000-0002-9775-3812
Jerzy P SzaflarskiORCID 0000-0002-5936-6627
Mieke van de Sandt-KoendermanORCID 0000-0002-8104-6937
Ineke van der MeulenORCID 0000-0002-6156-3873
Heather Harris WrightORCID 0000-0001-6922-6364
Glasgow Caledonian University · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundStroke rehabilitation interventions are routinely personalized to address individuals' needs, goals, and challenges based on evidence from aggregated randomized controlled trials (RCT) data and meta-syntheses. Individual participant data (IPD) meta-analyses may better inform the development of precision rehabilitation approaches, quantifying treatment responses while adjusting for confounders and reducing ecological bias.

aimWe explored associations between speech and language therapy (SLT) interventions frequency (days/week), intensity (h/week), and dosage (total SLT-hours) and language outcomes for different age, sex, aphasia severity, and chronicity subgroups by undertaking prespecified subgroup network meta-analyses of the RELEASE database.

methodsMEDLINE, EMBASE, and trial registrations were systematically searched (inception-Sept2015) for RCTs, including ⩾ 10 IPD on stroke-related aphasia. We extracted demographic, stroke, aphasia, SLT, and risk of bias data. Overall-language ability, auditory comprehension, and functional communication outcomes were standardized. A one-stage, random effects, network meta-analysis approach filtered IPD into a single optimal model, examining SLT regimen and language recovery from baseline to first post-intervention follow-up, adjusting for covariates identified

results959 IPD (25 RCTs) were analyzed. For working-age participants, greatest language gains from baseline occurred alongside moderate to high-intensity SLT (functional communication 3-to-4 h/week; overall-language and comprehension > 9 h/week); older participants' greatest gains occurred alongside low-intensity SLT (⩽ 2 h/week) except for auditory comprehension (> 9 h/week). For both age-groups, SLT-frequency and dosage associated with best language gains were similar. Participants ⩽ 3 months post-onset demonstrated greatest overall-language gains for SLT at low intensity/moderate dosage (⩽ 2 SLT-h/week; 20-to-50 h); for those > 3 months, post-stroke greatest gains were associated with moderate-intensity/high-dosage SLT (3-4 SLT-h/week; ⩾ 50 hours). For moderate-severe participants, 4 SLT-days/week conferred the greatest language gains across outcomes, with auditory comprehension gains only observed for ⩾ 4 SLT-days/week; mild-moderate participants' greatest functional communication gains were associated with similar frequency (⩾ 4 SLT-days/week) and greatest overall-language gains with higher frequency SLT (⩾ 6 days/weekly). Males' greatest gains were associated with SLT of moderate (functional communication; 3-to-4 h/weekly) or high intensity (overall-language and auditory comprehension; (> 9 h/weekly) compared to females for whom the greatest gains were associated with lower-intensity SLT (< 2 SLT-h/weekly). Consistencies across subgroups were also evident; greatest overall-language gains were associated with 20-to-50 SLT-h in total; auditory comprehension gains were generally observed when SLT > 9 h over ⩾ 4 days/week.

conclusionsWe observed a treatment response in most subgroups' overall-language, auditory comprehension, and functional communication language gains. For some, the maximum treatment response varied in association with different SLT-frequency, intensity, and dosage. Where differences were observed, working-aged, chronic, mild-moderate, and male subgroups experienced their greatest language gains alongside high-frequency/intensity SLT. In contrast, older, moderate-severely impaired, and female subgroups within 3 months of aphasia onset made their greatest gains for lower-intensity SLT. The acceptability, clinical, and cost effectiveness of precision aphasia rehabilitation approaches based on age, sex, aphasia severity, and chronicity should be evaluated in future clinical RCTs.

Indexed as

AphasiaStrokeStroke RehabilitationAgedFemaleHumansInfant, NewbornLanguageMaleSpeech Therapyaphasiaindividual participant datanetwork meta-analysisrehabilitationspeech and language therapyStroke

Identifiers

PMID35422175
PMCPMC9679795
OpenAlexW4223952215

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.