SynthesisPeerJ2026
Speech therapy for poststroke aphasia: a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Synthesis in PeerJ, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
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
Objective: Various speech therapies are available for treating poststroke aphasia; however, the effects of these strategies on poststroke aphasia have yet to be compared. We conducted a network meta-analysis to investigate the effects of different speech therapies on quality of life and language performance for patients with poststroke aphasia. Methods: This systematic review and network meta-analysis was registered in the PROSPERO database (CRD42023465936) on October 2, 2023. We searched the PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library electronic databases from their inception to September 20, 2023. We included trials that (1) involved participants with poststroke aphasia regardless of phase; (2) adopted speech therapy as the intervention; (3) applied either no intervention or another speech therapy as the control treatment; (4) reported quality of life or language performance as outcomes. The network meta-analysis was performed using the online tool ShinyNMA (version 1.01). Results: We examined 17 articles involving 931 patients. Our analyses revealed that both multimodality aphasia therapy and constraint-induced aphasia therapy prompted significant improvements in quality of life. However, no specific speech therapy showed statistically significant superiority over no intervention across isolated language domains. All significant results were also clinically meaningful. No significant inconsistencies were observed between the results of direct and indirect comparisons. Conclusions: Our results suggest that multimodality aphasia therapy and constraint-induced aphasia therapy show promise for improving quality of life in patients with poststroke aphasia. However, no single speech therapy demonstrated statistical superiority over no intervention across specific language domains.
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.