PURPOSE: This systematic review summarizes evidence for intensity of treatment and constraint-induced language therapy (CILT) on measures of language impairment and communication activity/participation in individuals with stroke-induced aphasia. METHOD: A systematic search of the aphasia literature using 15 electronic databases (e.g., PubMed, CINAHL) identified 10 studies meeting inclusion/exclusion criteria. A review panel evaluated studies for methodological quality. Studies were characterized by research stage (i.e., discovery, efficacy, effectiveness, cost-benefit/public policy research), and effect sizes (ESs) were calculated wherever possible. RESULTS: In chronic aphasia, studies provided modest evidence for more intensive treatment and the positive effects of CILT. In acute aphasia, 1 study evaluated high-intensity treatment positively; no studies examined CILT. Four studies reported discovery research, with quality scores ranging from 3 to 6 of 8 possible markers. Five treatment efficacy studies had quality scores ranging from 5 to 7 of 9 possible markers. One study of treatment effectiveness received a score of 4 of 8 possible markers. CONCLUSION: Although modest evidence exists for more intensive treatment and CILT for individuals with stroke-induced aphasia, the results of this review should be considered preliminary and, when making treatment decisions, should be used in conjunction with clinical expertise and the client's individual values.
PURPOSE: This systematic review summarizes evidence for intensity of treatment and constraint-induced language therapy (CILT) on measures of language impairment and communication activity/participation in individuals with stroke-induced aphasia. METHOD: A systematic search of the aphasia literature using 15 electronic databases (e.g., PubMed, CINAHL) identified 10 studies meeting inclusion/exclusion criteria. A review panel evaluated studies for methodological quality. Studies were characterized by research stage (i.e., discovery, efficacy, effectiveness, cost-benefit/public policy research), and effect sizes (ESs) were calculated wherever possible. RESULTS: In chronic aphasia, studies provided modest evidence for more intensive treatment and the positive effects of CILT. In acute aphasia, 1 study evaluated high-intensity treatment positively; no studies examined CILT. Four studies reported discovery research, with quality scores ranging from 3 to 6 of 8 possible markers. Five treatment efficacy studies had quality scores ranging from 5 to 7 of 9 possible markers. One study of treatment effectiveness received a score of 4 of 8 possible markers. CONCLUSION: Although modest evidence exists for more intensive treatment and CILT for individuals with stroke-induced aphasia, the results of this review should be considered preliminary and, when making treatment decisions, should be used in conjunction with clinical expertise and the client's individual values.
Authors: Lyn S Turkstra; Maura Quinn-Padron; Jacqueline E Johnson; Marilyn S Workinger; Nina Antoniotti Journal: J Head Trauma Rehabil Date: 2012 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 2.710
Authors: Kristen K Maul; Peggy S Conner; Daniel Kempler; Christina Radvanski; Mira Goral Journal: Am J Speech Lang Pathol Date: 2014-08 Impact factor: 2.408
Authors: Erica L Middleton; Myrna F Schwartz; Katherine A Rawson; Hilary Traut; Jay Verkuilen Journal: J Speech Lang Hear Res Date: 2016-10-01 Impact factor: 2.297