ArticleBMJ open2026
Effectiveness of non-pharmacological therapies for poststroke aphasia: a protocol of a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Article in BMJ open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionPoststroke aphasia is a common disabling complication following stroke, severely affecting patients' communication abilities and quality of life. Currently, various non-pharmacological therapies (eg, speech and language therapy, transcranial magnetic stimulation, computer-assisted therapy, etc) have been applied in clinical practice and show potential. However, the relative effectiveness and superiority among these interventions remain unclear. This study aims to systematically compare the effectiveness of different non-pharmacological therapies in improving language function in poststroke aphasia through a network meta-analysis and to rank their efficacy, thereby providing the best evidence for clinical decision-making. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The protocol will be reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) guidelines. The subsequent completed systematic review and network meta-analysis will be reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) for network meta-analyses (an extension of the PRISMA 2020 statement) guidelines. We will systematically search PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science and China National Knowledge Infrastructure for randomised controlled trials on non-pharmacological therapies for poststroke aphasia published from inception to March 2026. Two researchers will independently conduct literature screening, data extraction and risk of bias (RoB) assessment using the Cochrane RoB tool. The primary outcome is overall language function; secondary outcomes include specific language domains and quality of life. We will employ a frequentist framework for network meta-analysis using random-effects models. The node-splitting model will assess inconsistency, and surface under the cumulative ranking curve will evaluate treatment ranking probabilities. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: As this review will use only published aggregated data, ethical approval is not required. Findings will be disseminated through a peer-reviewed publication and presentations at relevant conferences. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD420261297981.
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.