Speech and language therapy for aphasia after stroke: an updated systematic review and meta-analyses

Marian C. Brady*, Jon Godwin, Pam Enderby, Helen Kelly, Pauline Campbell

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

84 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Introduction 
Aphasia significantly impacts on the individual, families and communities. Timely, effective intervention is vital. Speech and language therapy (SLT) is a complex rehabilitation intervention targeting improvement in language and communication abilities (verbal comprehension, spoken language, reading, writing), activity and participation. Therapy may vary in intervention regime, theoretical approach or delivery model.ObjectiveOur comprehensive updated review 1 synthesised evidence of the effectiveness of SLT for aphasia after stroke found in randomised control trials compared to (i) no therapy and (ii) other SLT interventions.
Data sources
We searched a range of sources including the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Library Databases, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, AMED, LLBA and SpeechBITE (all from inception to September 2015). We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov, the Stroke Trials Registry, Current Controlled Trials, and WHO ICTRP (all to September 2015). There were no language restrictions.
Data collection and analysis
Two reviewers independently classified trials according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, assessed trial quality and extracted data. We sought clarification or unpublished data from trialists when required. Using the TIDieR checklist we systematically extracted complex intervention data.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)e236-e237
Number of pages2
JournalStroke
Volume47
Issue number10
Early online date13 Sep 2016
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Oct 2016

Keywords

  • speech and language therapy
  • aphasia
  • stroke

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Speech and language therapy for aphasia after stroke: an updated systematic review and meta-analyses'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this