Background and Purpose: Optimizing speech and language therapy (SLT) regimens for maximal aphasia recovery is a clinical research priority. We examined associations between SLT intensity (hours/week), dosage (total hours), frequency (days/week), duration (weeks), delivery (face to face, computer supported, individual tailoring, and home practice), content, and language outcomes for people with aphasia. Methods: Databases including MEDLINE and Embase were searched (inception to September 2015). Published, unpublished, and emerging trials including SLT and ≥10 individual participant data on aphasia, language outcomes, and time post-onset were selected. Patient-level data on stroke, language, SLT, and trial risk of bias were independently extracted. Outcome measurement scores were standardized. A statistical inferencing, one-stage, random effects, network meta-analysis approach filtered individual participant data into an optimal model examining SLT regimen for overall language, auditory comprehension, naming, and functional communication pre-post intervention gains, adjusting for a priori–defined covariates (age, sex, time poststroke, and baseline aphasia severity), reporting estimates of mean change scores (95% CI). Results: Data from 959 individual participant data (25 trials) were included. Greatest gains in overall language and comprehension were associated with >20 to 50 hours SLT dosage (18.37 [10.58–26.16] Western Aphasia Battery–Aphasia Quotient; 5.23 [1.51–8.95] Aachen Aphasia Test–Token Test). Greatest clinical overall language, functional communication, and comprehension gains were associated with 2 to 4 and 9+ SLT hours/week. Greatest clinical gains were associated with frequent SLT for overall language, functional communication (3–5+ days/week), and comprehension (4–5 days/week). Evidence of comprehension gains was absent for SLT ≤20 hours, <3 hours/week, and ≤3 days/week. Mixed receptive-expressive therapy, functionally tailored, with prescribed home practice was associated with the greatest overall gains. Relative variance was <30%. Risk of trial bias was low to moderate; low for meta-biases. Conclusions: Greatest language recovery was associated with frequent, functionally tailored, receptive-expressive SLT, with prescribed home practice at a greater intensity and duration than reports of usual clinical services internationally. These exploratory findings suggest critical therapeutic ranges, informing hypothesis-testing trials and tailoring of clinical services. Registration: URL: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/ ; Unique identifier: CRD42018110947.

Background While meta-analyses confirm treatment for chronic post-stroke aphasia is effective, a lack of comparative evidence for different interventions limits prescription accuracy. We investigated whether Constraint-Induced Aphasia Therapy Plus (CIAT-plus) and/or Multimodality Aphasia Therapy (M-MAT) provided greater therapeutic benefit compared with usual community care and were differentially effective according to baseline aphasia severity. Methods We conducted a three-arm, multicentre, parallel group, open-label, blinded endpoint, phase III, randomised-controlled trial. We stratified eligible participants by baseline aphasia on the Western Aphasia Battery-Revised Aphasia Quotient (WAB-R-AQ). Groups of three participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to 30 hours of CIAT-Plus or M-MAT or to usual care (UC). Primary outcome was change in aphasia severity (WAB-R-AQ) from baseline to therapy completion analysed in the intention-to-treat population. Secondary outcomes included word retrieval, connected speech, functional communication, multimodal communication, quality of life and costs. Results We analysed 201 participants (70 in CIAT-Plus, 70 in M-MAT and 61 in UC). Aphasia severity was not significantly different between groups at postintervention: 1.05 points (95% CI −0.78 to 2.88; p=0.36) UC group vs CIAT-Plus; 1.06 points (95% CI −0.78 to 2.89; p=0.36) UC group vs M-MAT; 0.004 points (95% CI −1.76 to 1.77; p=1.00) CIAT-Plus vs M-MAT. Word retrieval, functional communication and communication-related quality of life were significantly improved following CIAT-Plus and M-MAT. Word retrieval benefits were maintained at 12-week follow-up. Conclusions CIAT-Plus and M-MAT were effective for word retrieval, functional communication, and quality of life, while UC was not. Future studies should explore predictive characteristics of responders and impacts of maintenance doses. Trial registration number ACTRN 2615000618550.

Background: Stroke rehabilitation interventions are routinely personalized to address individuals’ needs, goals, and challenges based on evidence from aggregated randomized controlled trials (RCT) data and meta-syntheses. Individual participant data (IPD) meta-analyses may better inform the development of precision rehabilitation approaches, quantifying treatment responses while adjusting for confounders and reducing ecological bias. Aim: We explored associations between speech and language therapy (SLT) interventions frequency (days/week), intensity (h/week), and dosage (total SLT-hours) and language outcomes for different age, sex, aphasia severity, and chronicity subgroups by undertaking prespecified subgroup network meta-analyses of the RELEASE database. Methods: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and trial registrations were systematically searched (inception-Sept2015) for RCTs, including ⩾ 10 IPD on stroke-related aphasia. We extracted demographic, stroke, aphasia, SLT, and risk of bias data. Overall-language ability, auditory comprehension, and functional communication outcomes were standardized. A one-stage, random effects, network meta-analysis approach filtered IPD into a single optimal model, examining SLT regimen and language recovery from baseline to first post-intervention follow-up, adjusting for covariates identified a-priori. Data were dichotomized by age (⩽/> 65 years), aphasia severity (mild–moderate/ moderate–severe based on language outcomes’ median value), chronicity (⩽/> 3 months), and sex subgroups. We reported estimates of means and 95% confidence intervals. Where relative variance was high (> 50%), results were reported for completeness. Results: 959 IPD (25 RCTs) were analyzed. For working-age participants, greatest language gains from baseline occurred alongside moderate to high-intensity SLT (functional communication 3-to-4 h/week; overall-language and comprehension > 9 h/week); older participants’ greatest gains occurred alongside low-intensity SLT (⩽ 2 h/week) except for auditory comprehension (> 9 h/week). For both age-groups, SLT-frequency and dosage associated with best language gains were similar. Participants ⩽ 3 months post-onset demonstrated greatest overall-language gains for SLT at low intensity/moderate dosage (⩽ 2 SLT-h/week; 20-to-50 h); for those > 3 months, post-stroke greatest gains were associated with moderate-intensity/high-dosage SLT (3–4 SLT-h/week; ⩾ 50 hours). For moderate–severe participants, 4 SLT-days/week conferred the greatest language gains across outcomes, with auditory comprehension gains only observed for ⩾ 4 SLT-days/week; mild–moderate participants’ greatest functional communication gains were associated with similar frequency (⩾ 4 SLT-days/week) and greatest overall-language gains with higher frequency SLT (⩾ 6 days/weekly). Males’ greatest gains were associated with SLT of moderate (functional communication; 3-to-4 h/weekly) or high intensity (overall-language and auditory comprehension; (> 9 h/weekly) compared to females for whom the greatest gains were associated with lower-intensity SLT (< 2 SLT-h/weekly). Consistencies across subgroups were also evident; greatest overall-language gains were associated with 20-to-50 SLT-h in total; auditory comprehension gains were generally observed when SLT > 9 h over ⩾ 4 days/week. Conclusions: We observed a treatment response in most subgroups’ overall-language, auditory comprehension, and functional communication language gains. For some, the maximum treatment response varied in association with different SLT-frequency, intensity, and dosage. Where differences were observed, working-aged, chronic, mild–moderate, and male subgroups experienced their greatest language gains alongside high-frequency/intensity SLT. In contrast, older, moderate–severely impaired, and female subgroups within 3 months of aphasia onset made their greatest gains for lower-intensity SLT. The acceptability, clinical, and cost effectiveness of precision aphasia rehabilitation approaches based on age, sex, aphasia severity, and chronicity should be evaluated in future clinical RCTs.

Evidence of effective aphasia rehabilitation is emerging, yet intervention and delivery varies widely. This European Stroke Organisation guideline adhered to the guideline development standard procedures and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. The resulting multi-disciplinary, evidence-based recommendations support the delivery of high-quality stroke-related aphasia rehabilitation. The working group identified 10 clinically relevant aphasia rehabilitation questions and rated outcomes’ relevance and importance. Following systematic searching, independent reviewers screened title-abstracts and full-texts for randomised controlled trials of speech-language therapy (SLT) for stroke-related aphasia. Results were profiled using PRISMA. Risk-of-bias was evaluated using the Cochrane Risk-of-Bias 1 tool. We prioritised final-value data. Where possible we conducted meta-analyses (RevMan) using random effects and mean, standardised mean differences (functional communication, quality of life, aphasia severity, auditory comprehension and spoken language outcomes) or odds ratios (adverse events). Using GRADE, we judged quality of the evidence (high-to-very low) and ESO recommendation strength (very strong-to-very weak). Where evidence was insufficient to support recommendations, expert opinions were described. Based on low-quality evidence we recommend the provision of higher total SLT dose (⩾20 h) and suggest higher SLT intensity and frequency to improve outcomes in aphasia rehabilitation. Similarly, we suggest the provision of individually-tailored SLT and digital and group therapy delivery models. Very low-level evidence for transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) with SLT informed the expert consensus that such interventions should only be provided in the context of high-quality trials. Evidence-based clinical-research priorities to inform SLT aphasia rehabilitation intervention choice and delivery are highlighted.

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) has been studied extensively for its potential to enhance human cognitive functions in healthy individuals and to treat cognitive impairment in various clinical populations. However, little is known about how tDCS modulates the neural networks supporting cognition and the complex interplay with mediating factors that may explain the frequently observed variability of stimulation effects within and between studies. Moreover, research in this field has been characterized by substantial methodological variability, frequent lack of rigorous experimental control and small sample sizes, thereby limiting the generalizability of findings and translational potential of tDCS. The present manuscript aims to delineate how these important issues can be addressed within a neuroimaging context, to reveal the neural underpinnings, predictors and mediators of tDCS-induced behavioral modulation. We will focus on functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), because it allows the investigation of tDCS effects with excellent spatial precision and sufficient temporal resolution across the entire brain. Moreover, high resolution structural imaging data can be acquired for precise localization of stimulation effects, verification of electrode positions on the scalp and realistic current modeling based on individual head and brain anatomy. However, the general principles outlined in this review will also be applicable to other imaging modalities. Following an introduction to the overall state-of-the-art in this field, we will discuss in more detail the underlying causes of variability in previous tDCS studies. Moreover, we will elaborate on design considerations for tDCS-fMRI studies, optimization of tDCS and imaging protocols and how to assure high-level experimental control. Two additional sections address the pressing need for more systematic investigation of tDCS effects across the healthy human lifespan and implications for tDCS studies in age-associated disease, and potential benefits of establishing large-scale, multidisciplinary consortia for more coordinated tDCS research in the future. We hope that this review will contribute to more coordinated, methodologically sound, transparent and reproducible research in this field. Ultimately, our aim is to facilitate a better understanding of the underlying mechanisms by which tDCS modulates human cognitive functions and more effective and individually tailored translational and clinical applications of this technique in the future.