Trial reportEuropean journal of physical and rehabilitation medicine2025
Rehabilitation of post-stroke aphasia by a single protocol targeting phonological, lexical, and semantic deficits with speech output tasks: a randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in European journal of physical and rehabilitation medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effectiveness of non-pharmacological therapies for poststroke aphasia: a protocol of a systematic review and network meta-analysis.BMJ open · 2026Article
- Effectiveness of a teletherapy-based phonological short-term memory training in reducing phonological impairments in the logopenic variant of primary progressive aphasia: a multiple case study.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe defective spoken output of persons with aphasia has anomia as a main clinical manifestation. Improving anomia is therefore a main goal of any language treatment.
aimThis study assessed the effectiveness of a novel, 2-week, rehabilitation protocol (PHOLEXSEM), focused on PHonological, SEmantic, and LExical deficits, aiming at improving lexical retrieval, and, generally, spoken output.
designA prospective, randomized controlled trial.
settingIn-patient and out-patient population of the Neurorehabilitation Unit of the Istituto Auxologico Italiano IRCCS, Milan, Italy. POPULATION: The sample comprised 44 adults with aphasia due to left brain damage; 22 of them were assigned to the experimental (PHOLEXSEM) group, whereas 22 were assigned to the control group that received the Promoting Aphasics Communicative Effectiveness (PACE) protocol.
methodsAll participants were treated 30-min daily for two weeks. The PHOLEXSEM training included 3 sets of exercises: 1) non-word, word, and phrase repetition; 2) semantic feature analysis by naming; 3) phonemic, semantic, and verb recall. Treatment effects were evaluated with tasks and items different from those used for training, to assess generalization effects.
resultsAfter the PHOLEXSEM treatment, repetition, naming, lexical retrieval and sentence comprehension improved more than in the control - PACE - group, with gains generalizing to non-trained items. These improvements were independent of aphasia chronicity and only marginally influenced by demographic factors.
conclusionsThe 2-week PHOLEXSEM training, by targeting spoken output, ameliorates different aspects of aphasia, ranging from speech production (i.e., phonology and lexical retrieval) to comprehension. CLINICAL REHABILITATION IMPACT: The PHOLEXSEM training is a useful and easy-to-administer intervention to improve post-stroke language deficits in adults of different ages, levels of education, duration, type, and severity of aphasia.
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.