Melodic Intonation Therapy in Chronic Aphasia: Evidence from a Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial

To update the previous evidence-based recommendations of the Brain Injury Interdisciplinary Special Interest Group of the American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine for cognitive rehabilitation of people with traumatic brain injury (TBI) and stroke, based on a systematic review of the literature from 1998 through 2002. PubMed and Infotrieve literature searches were conducted using the terms attention, awareness, cognition, communication, executive, language, memory, perception, problem solving, and reasoning combined with each of the terms rehabilitation, remediation, and training. Reference lists from identified articles were reviewed and a bibliography listing 312 articles was compiled. One hundred eighteen articles were initially selected for inclusion. Thirty-one studies were excluded after detailed review. Excluded articles included 14 studies without data, 6 duplicate publications or follow-up studies, 5 nontreatment studies, 4 reviews, and 2 case studies involving diagnoses other than TBI or stroke. Articles were assigned to 1 of 7 categories reflecting the primary area of intervention: attention; visual perception; apraxia; language and communication; memory; executive functioning, problem solving and awareness; and comprehensive-holistic cognitive rehabilitation. Articles were abstracted and levels of evidence determined using specific criteria. Of the 87 studies evaluated, 17 were rated as class I, 8 as class II, and 62 as class III. Evidence within each area of intervention was synthesized and recommendations for practice standards, practice guidelines, and practice options were made. There is substantial evidence to support cognitive-linguistic therapies for people with language deficits after left hemisphere stroke. New evidence supports training for apraxia after left hemisphere stroke. The evidence supports visuospatial rehabilitation for deficits associated with visual neglect after right hemisphere stroke. There is substantial evidence to support cognitive rehabilitation for people with TBI, including strategy training for mild memory impairment, strategy training for postacute attention deficits, and interventions for functional communication deficits. The overall analysis of 47 treatment comparisons, based on class I studies included in the current and previous review, reveals a differential benefit in favor of cognitive rehabilitation in 37 of 47 (78.7%) comparisons, with no comparison demonstrating a benefit in favor of the alternative treatment condition. Future research should move beyond the simple question of whether cognitive rehabilitation is effective, and examine the therapy factors and patient characteristics that optimize the clinical outcomes of cognitive rehabilitation.

The present study provides a meta-analysis of cognitive rehabilitation literature (K = 115, N = 2,014) that was originally reviewed by K. D. Cicerone et al. (2000, 2005) for the purpose of providing evidence-based practice guidelines for persons with acquired brain injury. The analysis yielded a small treatment effect size (ES = .30, d(+) statistic) directly attributable to cognitive rehabilitation. A larger treatment effect (ES = .71) was found for single-group pretest to posttest outcomes; however, modest improvement was observed for nontreatment control groups as well (ES = .41). Correction for this effect, which was not attributable to cognitive treatments, resulted in the small, but significant, overall estimate. Treatment effects were moderated by cognitive domain treated, time postinjury, type of brain injury, and age. The meta-analysis revealed sufficient evidence for the effectiveness of attention training after traumatic brain injury and of language and visuospatial training for aphasia and neglect syndromes after stroke. Results provide important quantitative documentation of effective treatments, complementing recent systematic reviews. Findings also highlight gaps in the scientific evidence supporting cognitive rehabilitation, thereby indicating future research directions. (c) 2009 APA, all rights reserved.

Aphasia is an acquired language impairment following brain damage that affects some or all language modalities: expression and understanding of speech, reading and writing. Approximately one-third of people who have a stroke experience aphasia. To assess the effectiveness of speech and language therapy (SLT) for aphasia following stroke. We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (last searched June 2011), MEDLINE (1966 to July 2011) and CINAHL (1982 to July 2011). In an effort to identify further published, unpublished and ongoing trials we handsearched the International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders (1969 to 2005) and reference lists of relevant articles and contacted academic institutions and other researchers. There were no language restrictions. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing SLT (a formal intervention that aims to improve language and communication abilities, activity and participation) with (1) no SLT; (2) social support or stimulation (an intervention that provides social support and communication stimulation but does not include targeted therapeutic interventions); and (3) another SLT intervention (which differed in duration, intensity, frequency, intervention methodology or theoretical approach). We independently extracted the data and assessed the quality of included trials. We sought missing data from investigators. We included 39 RCTs (51 randomised comparisons) involving 2518 participants in this review. Nineteen randomised comparisons (1414 participants) compared SLT with no SLT where SLT resulted in significant benefits to patients' functional communication (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.30, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.52, P = 0.008), receptive and expressive language. Seven randomised comparisons (432 participants) compared SLT with social support and stimulation but found no evidence of a difference in functional communication. Twenty-five randomised comparisons (910 participants) compared two approaches to SLT. There was no indication of a difference in functional communication. Generally, the trials randomised small numbers of participants across a range of characteristics (age, time since stroke and severity profiles), interventions and outcomes. Suitable statistical data were unavailable for several measures. Our review provides some evidence of the effectiveness of SLT for people with aphasia following stroke in terms of improved functional communication, receptive and expressive language. However, some trials were poorly reported. The potential benefits of intensive SLT over conventional SLT were confounded by a significantly higher dropout from intensive SLT. More participants also withdrew from social support than SLT interventions. There was insufficient evidence to draw any conclusion regarding the effectiveness of any one specific SLT approach over another.