SynthesisAnnals of the New York Academy of Sciences2025
Music-based interventions for nonfluent aphasia: A systematic review of randomized control trials.
Synthesis in Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Music-based interventions for nonfluent aphasia: A systematic review of randomized control trials.Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences · 2025Pooled it
- Listening to the Mind: Integrating Vocal Biomarkers into Digital Health.Brain sciences · 2025Article
- Neuroaesthetics: exploring the role of aesthetic experience in neurorehabilitation.Frontiers in psychology · 2025Article
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
Abstract
Music-based interventions (MBIs) offer promising strategies for addressing speech-language impairments in individuals with nonfluent aphasia. This systematic review summarizes the current literature of MBIs for nonfluent aphasia recovery by types of MBIs to determine the efficacy of MBIs and assesses the risk of bias to identify common methodological limitations. A systematic search was conducted of MEDLINE, PubMed, and APA PsycInfo for the 20 years preceding July 2024. Risk of bias assessment was performed using the revised Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal tool for randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Ten RCTs met the inclusion criteria, featuring MBIs such as Melodic Intonation Therapy, Modified Melodic Intonation Therapy, and singing-based approaches. The results highlighted the potential of MBIs in various domains, particularly in enhancing repetition and naming abilities, even when compared to speech therapy. The reviewed studies exhibited a moderate to high risk of bias. Outcome measures varied widely, and functional communication, a critical rehabilitation goal, was examined in just two RCTs. Furthermore, heterogeneous control conditions and statistical methods hindered meaningful comparisons across studies. Future research should prioritize functional communication outcomes and refine intervention protocols to strengthen the evidence base. Addressing these gaps is essential for advancing the potential benefits of these clinical tools for nonfluent aphasia recovery.
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.