Attention control comparisons with SLT for people with aphasia following stroke: methodological concerns raised following a systematic review

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

31 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

ObjectiveAttention control comparisons in trials of stroke rehabilitation require care to minimise the risk of comparison choice bias. We compared the similarities and differences in speech and language therapy and social support control interventions for people with aphasia.Data Sources: Trial data from the 2016 Cochrane systematic review of speech and language therapy for aphasia after strokeMethods: Direct and indirect comparisons between speech and language therapy, social support and no-therapy controls. We double-data extracted intervention details using the template for intervention description and replication. Standardized mean differences and risk ratios (95% confidence intervals) were calculated. Results: Seven trials compared speech and language therapy with social support (n=447). Interventions were matched in format, frequency, intensity, duration and dose. Procedures and materials were often shared across interventions. Social support providers received specialist training and support. Targeted language rehabilitation was only described in therapy interventions. Higher dropout (P = 0.005, OR 0.51 95% CI 0.32 to 0.81) and non-adherence to social support interventions (P<0.00001, OR 0.18, 95% CI 0.09to0.37) indicates imbalanced completion rates increasing the risk of control comparison bias. Conclusion: Distinctions between social support and therapy interventions were eroded. Theoretically based language rehabilitation was the remaining difference in therapy interventions. Social support is an important formal language rehabilitation adjunct. Therapists should continue to enable those close to the person with aphasia to provide tailored communication support, functional language stimulation and opportunities to apply rehabilitation gains. Systematic group differences in completion rates is a design-related risk of bias in outcomes observed.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1383–1395
JournalClinical Rehabilitation
Volume32
Issue number10
Early online date17 Jun 2018
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Oct 2018

Fingerprint

Aphasia
Social Support
Language Therapy
Speech Therapy
Stroke
Language
Rehabilitation
Training Support
Information Storage and Retrieval
Therapeutics
Odds Ratio
Communication
Confidence Intervals

Keywords

  • aphasia
  • stroke
  • rehabiliation
  • randomised controlled trial
  • methodology

Cite this

@article{d03114303aa94ace93887ebf0881a9a9,
title = "Attention control comparisons with SLT for people with aphasia following stroke: methodological concerns raised following a systematic review",
abstract = "ObjectiveAttention control comparisons in trials of stroke rehabilitation require care to minimise the risk of comparison choice bias. We compared the similarities and differences in speech and language therapy and social support control interventions for people with aphasia.Data Sources: Trial data from the 2016 Cochrane systematic review of speech and language therapy for aphasia after strokeMethods: Direct and indirect comparisons between speech and language therapy, social support and no-therapy controls. We double-data extracted intervention details using the template for intervention description and replication. Standardized mean differences and risk ratios (95{\%} confidence intervals) were calculated. Results: Seven trials compared speech and language therapy with social support (n=447). Interventions were matched in format, frequency, intensity, duration and dose. Procedures and materials were often shared across interventions. Social support providers received specialist training and support. Targeted language rehabilitation was only described in therapy interventions. Higher dropout (P = 0.005, OR 0.51 95{\%} CI 0.32 to 0.81) and non-adherence to social support interventions (P<0.00001, OR 0.18, 95{\%} CI 0.09to0.37) indicates imbalanced completion rates increasing the risk of control comparison bias. Conclusion: Distinctions between social support and therapy interventions were eroded. Theoretically based language rehabilitation was the remaining difference in therapy interventions. Social support is an important formal language rehabilitation adjunct. Therapists should continue to enable those close to the person with aphasia to provide tailored communication support, functional language stimulation and opportunities to apply rehabilitation gains. Systematic group differences in completion rates is a design-related risk of bias in outcomes observed.",
keywords = "aphasia, stroke, rehabiliation, randomised controlled trial, methodology",
author = "Brady, {Marian C.} and Jon Godwin and Helen Kelly and Pam Enderby and Andrew Elders and Pauline Campbell",
note = "Acceptance in SAN When pub - check and merge docs if needed",
year = "2018",
month = "10",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1177/0269215518780487",
language = "English",
volume = "32",
pages = "1383–1395",
journal = "Clinical Rehabilitation",
issn = "0269-2155",
publisher = "SAGE Publications",
number = "10",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Attention control comparisons with SLT for people with aphasia following stroke: methodological concerns raised following a systematic review

AU - Brady, Marian C.

AU - Godwin, Jon

AU - Kelly, Helen

AU - Enderby, Pam

AU - Elders, Andrew

AU - Campbell, Pauline

N1 - Acceptance in SAN When pub - check and merge docs if needed

PY - 2018/10/1

Y1 - 2018/10/1

N2 - ObjectiveAttention control comparisons in trials of stroke rehabilitation require care to minimise the risk of comparison choice bias. We compared the similarities and differences in speech and language therapy and social support control interventions for people with aphasia.Data Sources: Trial data from the 2016 Cochrane systematic review of speech and language therapy for aphasia after strokeMethods: Direct and indirect comparisons between speech and language therapy, social support and no-therapy controls. We double-data extracted intervention details using the template for intervention description and replication. Standardized mean differences and risk ratios (95% confidence intervals) were calculated. Results: Seven trials compared speech and language therapy with social support (n=447). Interventions were matched in format, frequency, intensity, duration and dose. Procedures and materials were often shared across interventions. Social support providers received specialist training and support. Targeted language rehabilitation was only described in therapy interventions. Higher dropout (P = 0.005, OR 0.51 95% CI 0.32 to 0.81) and non-adherence to social support interventions (P<0.00001, OR 0.18, 95% CI 0.09to0.37) indicates imbalanced completion rates increasing the risk of control comparison bias. Conclusion: Distinctions between social support and therapy interventions were eroded. Theoretically based language rehabilitation was the remaining difference in therapy interventions. Social support is an important formal language rehabilitation adjunct. Therapists should continue to enable those close to the person with aphasia to provide tailored communication support, functional language stimulation and opportunities to apply rehabilitation gains. Systematic group differences in completion rates is a design-related risk of bias in outcomes observed.

AB - ObjectiveAttention control comparisons in trials of stroke rehabilitation require care to minimise the risk of comparison choice bias. We compared the similarities and differences in speech and language therapy and social support control interventions for people with aphasia.Data Sources: Trial data from the 2016 Cochrane systematic review of speech and language therapy for aphasia after strokeMethods: Direct and indirect comparisons between speech and language therapy, social support and no-therapy controls. We double-data extracted intervention details using the template for intervention description and replication. Standardized mean differences and risk ratios (95% confidence intervals) were calculated. Results: Seven trials compared speech and language therapy with social support (n=447). Interventions were matched in format, frequency, intensity, duration and dose. Procedures and materials were often shared across interventions. Social support providers received specialist training and support. Targeted language rehabilitation was only described in therapy interventions. Higher dropout (P = 0.005, OR 0.51 95% CI 0.32 to 0.81) and non-adherence to social support interventions (P<0.00001, OR 0.18, 95% CI 0.09to0.37) indicates imbalanced completion rates increasing the risk of control comparison bias. Conclusion: Distinctions between social support and therapy interventions were eroded. Theoretically based language rehabilitation was the remaining difference in therapy interventions. Social support is an important formal language rehabilitation adjunct. Therapists should continue to enable those close to the person with aphasia to provide tailored communication support, functional language stimulation and opportunities to apply rehabilitation gains. Systematic group differences in completion rates is a design-related risk of bias in outcomes observed.

KW - aphasia

KW - stroke

KW - rehabiliation

KW - randomised controlled trial

KW - methodology

U2 - 10.1177/0269215518780487

DO - 10.1177/0269215518780487

M3 - Article

VL - 32

SP - 1383

EP - 1395

JO - Clinical Rehabilitation

JF - Clinical Rehabilitation

SN - 0269-2155

IS - 10

ER -