Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Funnel plot of comparison: 1 SLT versus no SLT, outcome: 1.3 Receptive language: reading comprehension.
Figures and Tables -
Figure 1

Funnel plot of comparison: 1 SLT versus no SLT, outcome: 1.3 Receptive language: reading comprehension.

Funnel plot of comparison: 1 SLT versus no SLT, outcome: 1.7 Expressive language: general.
Figures and Tables -
Figure 2

Funnel plot of comparison: 1 SLT versus no SLT, outcome: 1.7 Expressive language: general.

Funnel plot of comparison: 1 SLT versus no SLT, outcome: 1.8 Expressive language: written.
Figures and Tables -
Figure 3

Funnel plot of comparison: 1 SLT versus no SLT, outcome: 1.8 Expressive language: written.

Funnel plot of comparison: 1 SLT versus no SLT, outcome: 1.11 Severity of impairment: Aphasia Battery Score (+ PICA).
Figures and Tables -
Figure 4

Funnel plot of comparison: 1 SLT versus no SLT, outcome: 1.11 Severity of impairment: Aphasia Battery Score (+ PICA).

'Risk of bias' graph: review authors' judgements about each 'Risk of bias' item presented as percentages across all included studies.
Figures and Tables -
Figure 5

'Risk of bias' graph: review authors' judgements about each 'Risk of bias' item presented as percentages across all included studies.

'Risk of bias' summary: review authors' judgements about each 'Risk of bias' item for each included study.
Figures and Tables -
Figure 6

'Risk of bias' summary: review authors' judgements about each 'Risk of bias' item for each included study.

Comparison 1 SLT versus no SLT, Outcome 1 Functional communication.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.1

Comparison 1 SLT versus no SLT, Outcome 1 Functional communication.

Comparison 1 SLT versus no SLT, Outcome 2 Receptive language: auditory comprehension.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.2

Comparison 1 SLT versus no SLT, Outcome 2 Receptive language: auditory comprehension.

Comparison 1 SLT versus no SLT, Outcome 3 Receptive language: reading comprehension.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.3

Comparison 1 SLT versus no SLT, Outcome 3 Receptive language: reading comprehension.

Comparison 1 SLT versus no SLT, Outcome 4 Receptive language: other.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.4

Comparison 1 SLT versus no SLT, Outcome 4 Receptive language: other.

Comparison 1 SLT versus no SLT, Outcome 5 Receptive language: gesture comprehension (unnamed).
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.5

Comparison 1 SLT versus no SLT, Outcome 5 Receptive language: gesture comprehension (unnamed).

Comparison 1 SLT versus no SLT, Outcome 6 Expressive language: naming.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.6

Comparison 1 SLT versus no SLT, Outcome 6 Expressive language: naming.

Comparison 1 SLT versus no SLT, Outcome 7 Expressive language: general.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.7

Comparison 1 SLT versus no SLT, Outcome 7 Expressive language: general.

Comparison 1 SLT versus no SLT, Outcome 8 Expressive language: written.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.8

Comparison 1 SLT versus no SLT, Outcome 8 Expressive language: written.

Comparison 1 SLT versus no SLT, Outcome 9 Expressive language: written copying.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.9

Comparison 1 SLT versus no SLT, Outcome 9 Expressive language: written copying.

Comparison 1 SLT versus no SLT, Outcome 10 Expressive language: repetition.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.10

Comparison 1 SLT versus no SLT, Outcome 10 Expressive language: repetition.

Comparison 1 SLT versus no SLT, Outcome 11 Severity of impairment: Aphasia Battery Score (+ PICA).
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.11

Comparison 1 SLT versus no SLT, Outcome 11 Severity of impairment: Aphasia Battery Score (+ PICA).

Comparison 1 SLT versus no SLT, Outcome 12 Severity of impairment: Aphasia Battery Score (3‐month follow‐up).
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.12

Comparison 1 SLT versus no SLT, Outcome 12 Severity of impairment: Aphasia Battery Score (3‐month follow‐up).

Comparison 1 SLT versus no SLT, Outcome 13 Psychosocial: MAACL.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.13

Comparison 1 SLT versus no SLT, Outcome 13 Psychosocial: MAACL.

Comparison 1 SLT versus no SLT, Outcome 14 Number of dropouts (any reason).
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.14

Comparison 1 SLT versus no SLT, Outcome 14 Number of dropouts (any reason).

Comparison 1 SLT versus no SLT, Outcome 15 Compliance with Allocated Intervention.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.15

Comparison 1 SLT versus no SLT, Outcome 15 Compliance with Allocated Intervention.

Comparison 2 SLT versus social support and stimulation, Outcome 1 Functional communication.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 2.1

Comparison 2 SLT versus social support and stimulation, Outcome 1 Functional communication.

Comparison 2 SLT versus social support and stimulation, Outcome 2 Functional communication ‐ follow‐up measures.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 2.2

Comparison 2 SLT versus social support and stimulation, Outcome 2 Functional communication ‐ follow‐up measures.

Comparison 2 SLT versus social support and stimulation, Outcome 3 Receptive language: auditory comprehension.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 2.3

Comparison 2 SLT versus social support and stimulation, Outcome 3 Receptive language: auditory comprehension.

Comparison 2 SLT versus social support and stimulation, Outcome 4 Receptive language: other.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 2.4

Comparison 2 SLT versus social support and stimulation, Outcome 4 Receptive language: other.

Comparison 2 SLT versus social support and stimulation, Outcome 5 Expressive language: single words.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 2.5

Comparison 2 SLT versus social support and stimulation, Outcome 5 Expressive language: single words.

Comparison 2 SLT versus social support and stimulation, Outcome 6 Expressive language: sentences.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 2.6

Comparison 2 SLT versus social support and stimulation, Outcome 6 Expressive language: sentences.

Comparison 2 SLT versus social support and stimulation, Outcome 7 Expressive language: picture description.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 2.7

Comparison 2 SLT versus social support and stimulation, Outcome 7 Expressive language: picture description.

Comparison 2 SLT versus social support and stimulation, Outcome 8 Expressive language: overall spoken.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 2.8

Comparison 2 SLT versus social support and stimulation, Outcome 8 Expressive language: overall spoken.

Comparison 2 SLT versus social support and stimulation, Outcome 9 Expressive language: written.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 2.9

Comparison 2 SLT versus social support and stimulation, Outcome 9 Expressive language: written.

Comparison 2 SLT versus social support and stimulation, Outcome 10 Severity of impairment: Aphasia Battery Score.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 2.10

Comparison 2 SLT versus social support and stimulation, Outcome 10 Severity of impairment: Aphasia Battery Score.

Comparison 2 SLT versus social support and stimulation, Outcome 11 Psychosocial.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 2.11

Comparison 2 SLT versus social support and stimulation, Outcome 11 Psychosocial.

Comparison 2 SLT versus social support and stimulation, Outcome 12 Number of dropouts for any reason.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 2.12

Comparison 2 SLT versus social support and stimulation, Outcome 12 Number of dropouts for any reason.

Comparison 2 SLT versus social support and stimulation, Outcome 13 Compliance with Allocated Intervention.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 2.13

Comparison 2 SLT versus social support and stimulation, Outcome 13 Compliance with Allocated Intervention.

Comparison 2 SLT versus social support and stimulation, Outcome 14 Economic outcomes.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 2.14

Comparison 2 SLT versus social support and stimulation, Outcome 14 Economic outcomes.

Comparison 3 Experimental SLT (SLT A) versus conventional SLT (SLT B), Outcome 1 Functional communication.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 3.1

Comparison 3 Experimental SLT (SLT A) versus conventional SLT (SLT B), Outcome 1 Functional communication.

Comparison 3 Experimental SLT (SLT A) versus conventional SLT (SLT B), Outcome 2 Functional communication: catalogue ordering.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 3.2

Comparison 3 Experimental SLT (SLT A) versus conventional SLT (SLT B), Outcome 2 Functional communication: catalogue ordering.

Comparison 3 Experimental SLT (SLT A) versus conventional SLT (SLT B), Outcome 3 Receptive language: word comprehension.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 3.3

Comparison 3 Experimental SLT (SLT A) versus conventional SLT (SLT B), Outcome 3 Receptive language: word comprehension.

Comparison 3 Experimental SLT (SLT A) versus conventional SLT (SLT B), Outcome 4 Receptive language: other auditory comprehension.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 3.4

Comparison 3 Experimental SLT (SLT A) versus conventional SLT (SLT B), Outcome 4 Receptive language: other auditory comprehension.

Comparison 3 Experimental SLT (SLT A) versus conventional SLT (SLT B), Outcome 5 Receptive language: auditory comprehension (treated items).
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 3.5

Comparison 3 Experimental SLT (SLT A) versus conventional SLT (SLT B), Outcome 5 Receptive language: auditory comprehension (treated items).

Comparison 3 Experimental SLT (SLT A) versus conventional SLT (SLT B), Outcome 6 Receptive language: reading comprehension.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 3.6

Comparison 3 Experimental SLT (SLT A) versus conventional SLT (SLT B), Outcome 6 Receptive language: reading comprehension.

Comparison 3 Experimental SLT (SLT A) versus conventional SLT (SLT B), Outcome 7 Receptive language: other comprehension.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 3.7

Comparison 3 Experimental SLT (SLT A) versus conventional SLT (SLT B), Outcome 7 Receptive language: other comprehension.

Comparison 3 Experimental SLT (SLT A) versus conventional SLT (SLT B), Outcome 8 Expressive language: naming.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 3.8

Comparison 3 Experimental SLT (SLT A) versus conventional SLT (SLT B), Outcome 8 Expressive language: naming.

Comparison 3 Experimental SLT (SLT A) versus conventional SLT (SLT B), Outcome 9 Expressive language: naming (change from baseline).
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 3.9

Comparison 3 Experimental SLT (SLT A) versus conventional SLT (SLT B), Outcome 9 Expressive language: naming (change from baseline).

Comparison 3 Experimental SLT (SLT A) versus conventional SLT (SLT B), Outcome 10 Expressive language: naming (follow‐up).
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 3.10

Comparison 3 Experimental SLT (SLT A) versus conventional SLT (SLT B), Outcome 10 Expressive language: naming (follow‐up).

Comparison 3 Experimental SLT (SLT A) versus conventional SLT (SLT B), Outcome 11 Expressive language: spoken sentence.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 3.11

Comparison 3 Experimental SLT (SLT A) versus conventional SLT (SLT B), Outcome 11 Expressive language: spoken sentence.

Comparison 3 Experimental SLT (SLT A) versus conventional SLT (SLT B), Outcome 12 Expressive language: treated items.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 3.12

Comparison 3 Experimental SLT (SLT A) versus conventional SLT (SLT B), Outcome 12 Expressive language: treated items.

Comparison 3 Experimental SLT (SLT A) versus conventional SLT (SLT B), Outcome 13 Expressive language: connected discourse.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 3.13

Comparison 3 Experimental SLT (SLT A) versus conventional SLT (SLT B), Outcome 13 Expressive language: connected discourse.

Comparison 3 Experimental SLT (SLT A) versus conventional SLT (SLT B), Outcome 14 Expressive language: fluency.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 3.14

Comparison 3 Experimental SLT (SLT A) versus conventional SLT (SLT B), Outcome 14 Expressive language: fluency.

Comparison 3 Experimental SLT (SLT A) versus conventional SLT (SLT B), Outcome 15 Expressive language: repetition.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 3.15

Comparison 3 Experimental SLT (SLT A) versus conventional SLT (SLT B), Outcome 15 Expressive language: repetition.

Comparison 3 Experimental SLT (SLT A) versus conventional SLT (SLT B), Outcome 16 Expressive language: written.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 3.16

Comparison 3 Experimental SLT (SLT A) versus conventional SLT (SLT B), Outcome 16 Expressive language: written.

Comparison 3 Experimental SLT (SLT A) versus conventional SLT (SLT B), Outcome 17 Severity of impairment: Aphasia Battery Score.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 3.17

Comparison 3 Experimental SLT (SLT A) versus conventional SLT (SLT B), Outcome 17 Severity of impairment: Aphasia Battery Score.

Comparison 3 Experimental SLT (SLT A) versus conventional SLT (SLT B), Outcome 18 Severity of impairment: change from baseline.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 3.18

Comparison 3 Experimental SLT (SLT A) versus conventional SLT (SLT B), Outcome 18 Severity of impairment: change from baseline.

Comparison 3 Experimental SLT (SLT A) versus conventional SLT (SLT B), Outcome 19 Number of dropouts for any reason.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 3.19

Comparison 3 Experimental SLT (SLT A) versus conventional SLT (SLT B), Outcome 19 Number of dropouts for any reason.

Comparison 3 Experimental SLT (SLT A) versus conventional SLT (SLT B), Outcome 20 Compliance with Allocated Intervention.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 3.20

Comparison 3 Experimental SLT (SLT A) versus conventional SLT (SLT B), Outcome 20 Compliance with Allocated Intervention.

Comparison 4 Intensive SLT (SLT A) versus conventional SLT (SLT B), Outcome 1 Functional communication.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 4.1

Comparison 4 Intensive SLT (SLT A) versus conventional SLT (SLT B), Outcome 1 Functional communication.

Comparison 4 Intensive SLT (SLT A) versus conventional SLT (SLT B), Outcome 2 Functional communication (follow‐up).
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 4.2

Comparison 4 Intensive SLT (SLT A) versus conventional SLT (SLT B), Outcome 2 Functional communication (follow‐up).

Comparison 4 Intensive SLT (SLT A) versus conventional SLT (SLT B), Outcome 3 Receptive language: auditory comprehension.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 4.3

Comparison 4 Intensive SLT (SLT A) versus conventional SLT (SLT B), Outcome 3 Receptive language: auditory comprehension.

Comparison 4 Intensive SLT (SLT A) versus conventional SLT (SLT B), Outcome 4 Receptive language: auditory comprehension (change from baseline).
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 4.4

Comparison 4 Intensive SLT (SLT A) versus conventional SLT (SLT B), Outcome 4 Receptive language: auditory comprehension (change from baseline).

Comparison 4 Intensive SLT (SLT A) versus conventional SLT (SLT B), Outcome 5 Expressive language: spoken.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 4.5

Comparison 4 Intensive SLT (SLT A) versus conventional SLT (SLT B), Outcome 5 Expressive language: spoken.

Comparison 4 Intensive SLT (SLT A) versus conventional SLT (SLT B), Outcome 6 Expressive language: spoken (change from baseline scores).
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 4.6

Comparison 4 Intensive SLT (SLT A) versus conventional SLT (SLT B), Outcome 6 Expressive language: spoken (change from baseline scores).

Comparison 4 Intensive SLT (SLT A) versus conventional SLT (SLT B), Outcome 7 Expressive language: written (change from baseline scores).
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 4.7

Comparison 4 Intensive SLT (SLT A) versus conventional SLT (SLT B), Outcome 7 Expressive language: written (change from baseline scores).

Comparison 4 Intensive SLT (SLT A) versus conventional SLT (SLT B), Outcome 8 Severity of impairment: Aphasia Battery Score.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 4.8

Comparison 4 Intensive SLT (SLT A) versus conventional SLT (SLT B), Outcome 8 Severity of impairment: Aphasia Battery Score.

Comparison 4 Intensive SLT (SLT A) versus conventional SLT (SLT B), Outcome 9 Severity of impairment: Aphasia Battery Score (change from baseline).
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 4.9

Comparison 4 Intensive SLT (SLT A) versus conventional SLT (SLT B), Outcome 9 Severity of impairment: Aphasia Battery Score (change from baseline).

Comparison 4 Intensive SLT (SLT A) versus conventional SLT (SLT B), Outcome 10 Severity of impairment: Aphasia Battery Score (follow‐up).
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 4.10

Comparison 4 Intensive SLT (SLT A) versus conventional SLT (SLT B), Outcome 10 Severity of impairment: Aphasia Battery Score (follow‐up).

Comparison 4 Intensive SLT (SLT A) versus conventional SLT (SLT B), Outcome 11 Number of dropouts for any reason.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 4.11

Comparison 4 Intensive SLT (SLT A) versus conventional SLT (SLT B), Outcome 11 Number of dropouts for any reason.

Comparison 4 Intensive SLT (SLT A) versus conventional SLT (SLT B), Outcome 12 Compliance with Allocated Intervention.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 4.12

Comparison 4 Intensive SLT (SLT A) versus conventional SLT (SLT B), Outcome 12 Compliance with Allocated Intervention.

Comparison 5 Group SLT (SLT A) versus one‐to‐one SLT (SLT B), Outcome 1 Functional communication.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 5.1

Comparison 5 Group SLT (SLT A) versus one‐to‐one SLT (SLT B), Outcome 1 Functional communication.

Comparison 5 Group SLT (SLT A) versus one‐to‐one SLT (SLT B), Outcome 2 Receptive language: auditory comprehension.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 5.2

Comparison 5 Group SLT (SLT A) versus one‐to‐one SLT (SLT B), Outcome 2 Receptive language: auditory comprehension.

Comparison 5 Group SLT (SLT A) versus one‐to‐one SLT (SLT B), Outcome 3 Receptive language: other.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 5.3

Comparison 5 Group SLT (SLT A) versus one‐to‐one SLT (SLT B), Outcome 3 Receptive language: other.

Comparison 5 Group SLT (SLT A) versus one‐to‐one SLT (SLT B), Outcome 4 Expressive language: spoken.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 5.4

Comparison 5 Group SLT (SLT A) versus one‐to‐one SLT (SLT B), Outcome 4 Expressive language: spoken.

Comparison 5 Group SLT (SLT A) versus one‐to‐one SLT (SLT B), Outcome 5 Expressive language: repetition.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 5.5

Comparison 5 Group SLT (SLT A) versus one‐to‐one SLT (SLT B), Outcome 5 Expressive language: repetition.

Comparison 5 Group SLT (SLT A) versus one‐to‐one SLT (SLT B), Outcome 6 Expressive language: written.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 5.6

Comparison 5 Group SLT (SLT A) versus one‐to‐one SLT (SLT B), Outcome 6 Expressive language: written.

Comparison 5 Group SLT (SLT A) versus one‐to‐one SLT (SLT B), Outcome 7 Severity of impairment: Aphasia Battery Score.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 5.7

Comparison 5 Group SLT (SLT A) versus one‐to‐one SLT (SLT B), Outcome 7 Severity of impairment: Aphasia Battery Score.

Comparison 5 Group SLT (SLT A) versus one‐to‐one SLT (SLT B), Outcome 8 Severity of impairment: Aphasia Battery Score (3‐month follow‐up).
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 5.8

Comparison 5 Group SLT (SLT A) versus one‐to‐one SLT (SLT B), Outcome 8 Severity of impairment: Aphasia Battery Score (3‐month follow‐up).

Comparison 5 Group SLT (SLT A) versus one‐to‐one SLT (SLT B), Outcome 9 Number of dropouts for any reason.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 5.9

Comparison 5 Group SLT (SLT A) versus one‐to‐one SLT (SLT B), Outcome 9 Number of dropouts for any reason.

Comparison 6 Volunteer‐facilitated SLT (SLT A) versus professional SLT (SLT B), Outcome 1 Functional communication.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 6.1

Comparison 6 Volunteer‐facilitated SLT (SLT A) versus professional SLT (SLT B), Outcome 1 Functional communication.

Comparison 6 Volunteer‐facilitated SLT (SLT A) versus professional SLT (SLT B), Outcome 2 Receptive language: auditory comprehension.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 6.2

Comparison 6 Volunteer‐facilitated SLT (SLT A) versus professional SLT (SLT B), Outcome 2 Receptive language: auditory comprehension.

Comparison 6 Volunteer‐facilitated SLT (SLT A) versus professional SLT (SLT B), Outcome 3 Receptive language: reading comprehension.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 6.3

Comparison 6 Volunteer‐facilitated SLT (SLT A) versus professional SLT (SLT B), Outcome 3 Receptive language: reading comprehension.

Comparison 6 Volunteer‐facilitated SLT (SLT A) versus professional SLT (SLT B), Outcome 4 Receptive language: other.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 6.4

Comparison 6 Volunteer‐facilitated SLT (SLT A) versus professional SLT (SLT B), Outcome 4 Receptive language: other.

Comparison 6 Volunteer‐facilitated SLT (SLT A) versus professional SLT (SLT B), Outcome 5 Expressive language: spoken.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 6.5

Comparison 6 Volunteer‐facilitated SLT (SLT A) versus professional SLT (SLT B), Outcome 5 Expressive language: spoken.

Comparison 6 Volunteer‐facilitated SLT (SLT A) versus professional SLT (SLT B), Outcome 6 Expressive language: repetition.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 6.6

Comparison 6 Volunteer‐facilitated SLT (SLT A) versus professional SLT (SLT B), Outcome 6 Expressive language: repetition.

Comparison 6 Volunteer‐facilitated SLT (SLT A) versus professional SLT (SLT B), Outcome 7 Expressive language: written.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 6.7

Comparison 6 Volunteer‐facilitated SLT (SLT A) versus professional SLT (SLT B), Outcome 7 Expressive language: written.

Comparison 6 Volunteer‐facilitated SLT (SLT A) versus professional SLT (SLT B), Outcome 8 Severity of impairment: Aphasia Battery Score.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 6.8

Comparison 6 Volunteer‐facilitated SLT (SLT A) versus professional SLT (SLT B), Outcome 8 Severity of impairment: Aphasia Battery Score.

Comparison 6 Volunteer‐facilitated SLT (SLT A) versus professional SLT (SLT B), Outcome 9 Number of dropouts for any reason.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 6.9

Comparison 6 Volunteer‐facilitated SLT (SLT A) versus professional SLT (SLT B), Outcome 9 Number of dropouts for any reason.

Comparison 6 Volunteer‐facilitated SLT (SLT A) versus professional SLT (SLT B), Outcome 10 Compliance with allocated intervention.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 6.10

Comparison 6 Volunteer‐facilitated SLT (SLT A) versus professional SLT (SLT B), Outcome 10 Compliance with allocated intervention.

Comparison 7 Computer‐mediated SLT (SLT A) versus professional SLT (SLT B), Outcome 1 Functional communication.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 7.1

Comparison 7 Computer‐mediated SLT (SLT A) versus professional SLT (SLT B), Outcome 1 Functional communication.

Comparison 7 Computer‐mediated SLT (SLT A) versus professional SLT (SLT B), Outcome 2 Receptive language: reading comprehension.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 7.2

Comparison 7 Computer‐mediated SLT (SLT A) versus professional SLT (SLT B), Outcome 2 Receptive language: reading comprehension.

Comparison 7 Computer‐mediated SLT (SLT A) versus professional SLT (SLT B), Outcome 3 Expressive language: written.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 7.3

Comparison 7 Computer‐mediated SLT (SLT A) versus professional SLT (SLT B), Outcome 3 Expressive language: written.

Comparison 7 Computer‐mediated SLT (SLT A) versus professional SLT (SLT B), Outcome 4 Severity of impairment: Aphasia Battery Score.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 7.4

Comparison 7 Computer‐mediated SLT (SLT A) versus professional SLT (SLT B), Outcome 4 Severity of impairment: Aphasia Battery Score.

Comparison 8 Semantic SLT (SLT A) versus phonological SLT (SLT B), Outcome 1 Functional communication.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 8.1

Comparison 8 Semantic SLT (SLT A) versus phonological SLT (SLT B), Outcome 1 Functional communication.

Comparison 8 Semantic SLT (SLT A) versus phonological SLT (SLT B), Outcome 2 Receptive language: auditory.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 8.2

Comparison 8 Semantic SLT (SLT A) versus phonological SLT (SLT B), Outcome 2 Receptive language: auditory.

Comparison 8 Semantic SLT (SLT A) versus phonological SLT (SLT B), Outcome 3 Receptive language: reading.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 8.3

Comparison 8 Semantic SLT (SLT A) versus phonological SLT (SLT B), Outcome 3 Receptive language: reading.

Comparison 8 Semantic SLT (SLT A) versus phonological SLT (SLT B), Outcome 4 Expressive language: repetition.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 8.4

Comparison 8 Semantic SLT (SLT A) versus phonological SLT (SLT B), Outcome 4 Expressive language: repetition.

Comparison 8 Semantic SLT (SLT A) versus phonological SLT (SLT B), Outcome 5 Number of dropouts for any reason.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 8.5

Comparison 8 Semantic SLT (SLT A) versus phonological SLT (SLT B), Outcome 5 Number of dropouts for any reason.

Comparison 9 Cognitive‐linguistic SLT (SLT A) versus communicative SLT (SLT B), Outcome 1 Functional communication.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 9.1

Comparison 9 Cognitive‐linguistic SLT (SLT A) versus communicative SLT (SLT B), Outcome 1 Functional communication.

Comparison 9 Cognitive‐linguistic SLT (SLT A) versus communicative SLT (SLT B), Outcome 2 Receptive language: other comprehension.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 9.2

Comparison 9 Cognitive‐linguistic SLT (SLT A) versus communicative SLT (SLT B), Outcome 2 Receptive language: other comprehension.

Comparison 9 Cognitive‐linguistic SLT (SLT A) versus communicative SLT (SLT B), Outcome 3 Expressive language: fluency.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 9.3

Comparison 9 Cognitive‐linguistic SLT (SLT A) versus communicative SLT (SLT B), Outcome 3 Expressive language: fluency.

Comparison 9 Cognitive‐linguistic SLT (SLT A) versus communicative SLT (SLT B), Outcome 4 Expressive language: repetition.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 9.4

Comparison 9 Cognitive‐linguistic SLT (SLT A) versus communicative SLT (SLT B), Outcome 4 Expressive language: repetition.

Comparison 9 Cognitive‐linguistic SLT (SLT A) versus communicative SLT (SLT B), Outcome 5 Number of dropouts for any reason.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 9.5

Comparison 9 Cognitive‐linguistic SLT (SLT A) versus communicative SLT (SLT B), Outcome 5 Number of dropouts for any reason.

Comparison 9 Cognitive‐linguistic SLT (SLT A) versus communicative SLT (SLT B), Outcome 6 Compliance with Allocated Intervention.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 9.6

Comparison 9 Cognitive‐linguistic SLT (SLT A) versus communicative SLT (SLT B), Outcome 6 Compliance with Allocated Intervention.

Comparison 10 Verb comprehension SLT (SLT A) versus preposition comprehension SLT (SLT B), Outcome 1 Receptive language: auditory comprehension.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 10.1

Comparison 10 Verb comprehension SLT (SLT A) versus preposition comprehension SLT (SLT B), Outcome 1 Receptive language: auditory comprehension.

Comparison 10 Verb comprehension SLT (SLT A) versus preposition comprehension SLT (SLT B), Outcome 2 Receptive language: reading.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 10.2

Comparison 10 Verb comprehension SLT (SLT A) versus preposition comprehension SLT (SLT B), Outcome 2 Receptive language: reading.

Comparison 10 Verb comprehension SLT (SLT A) versus preposition comprehension SLT (SLT B), Outcome 3 Expressive language.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 10.3

Comparison 10 Verb comprehension SLT (SLT A) versus preposition comprehension SLT (SLT B), Outcome 3 Expressive language.

Comparison 10 Verb comprehension SLT (SLT A) versus preposition comprehension SLT (SLT B), Outcome 4 Severity of impairment: Aphasia Battery Score.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 10.4

Comparison 10 Verb comprehension SLT (SLT A) versus preposition comprehension SLT (SLT B), Outcome 4 Severity of impairment: Aphasia Battery Score.

Comparison 11 Functional SLT (SLT A) versus conventional SLT (SLT B), Outcome 1 Functional communication.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 11.1

Comparison 11 Functional SLT (SLT A) versus conventional SLT (SLT B), Outcome 1 Functional communication.

Comparison 11 Functional SLT (SLT A) versus conventional SLT (SLT B), Outcome 2 Functional communication: catalogue ordering.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 11.2

Comparison 11 Functional SLT (SLT A) versus conventional SLT (SLT B), Outcome 2 Functional communication: catalogue ordering.

Comparison 11 Functional SLT (SLT A) versus conventional SLT (SLT B), Outcome 3 Expressive language: spoken.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 11.3

Comparison 11 Functional SLT (SLT A) versus conventional SLT (SLT B), Outcome 3 Expressive language: spoken.

Comparison 11 Functional SLT (SLT A) versus conventional SLT (SLT B), Outcome 4 Expressive language: written.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 11.4

Comparison 11 Functional SLT (SLT A) versus conventional SLT (SLT B), Outcome 4 Expressive language: written.

Comparison 12 Constraint‐Induced Language Therapy (SLT A) versus conventional SLT (SLT B), Outcome 1 Receptive language: auditory comprehension.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 12.1

Comparison 12 Constraint‐Induced Language Therapy (SLT A) versus conventional SLT (SLT B), Outcome 1 Receptive language: auditory comprehension.

Comparison 12 Constraint‐Induced Language Therapy (SLT A) versus conventional SLT (SLT B), Outcome 2 Expressive language: spoken.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 12.2

Comparison 12 Constraint‐Induced Language Therapy (SLT A) versus conventional SLT (SLT B), Outcome 2 Expressive language: spoken.

Comparison 12 Constraint‐Induced Language Therapy (SLT A) versus conventional SLT (SLT B), Outcome 3 Expressive language: repetition.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 12.3

Comparison 12 Constraint‐Induced Language Therapy (SLT A) versus conventional SLT (SLT B), Outcome 3 Expressive language: repetition.

Comparison 12 Constraint‐Induced Language Therapy (SLT A) versus conventional SLT (SLT B), Outcome 4 Severity of impairment: Aphasia Battery Score.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 12.4

Comparison 12 Constraint‐Induced Language Therapy (SLT A) versus conventional SLT (SLT B), Outcome 4 Severity of impairment: Aphasia Battery Score.

Comparison 13 Operant training SLT (SLT A) versus conventional SLT (SLT B), Outcome 1 Receptive language: auditory comprehension.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 13.1

Comparison 13 Operant training SLT (SLT A) versus conventional SLT (SLT B), Outcome 1 Receptive language: auditory comprehension.

Comparison 13 Operant training SLT (SLT A) versus conventional SLT (SLT B), Outcome 2 Receptive language: other.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 13.2

Comparison 13 Operant training SLT (SLT A) versus conventional SLT (SLT B), Outcome 2 Receptive language: other.

Comparison 13 Operant training SLT (SLT A) versus conventional SLT (SLT B), Outcome 3 Expressive language: spoken.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 13.3

Comparison 13 Operant training SLT (SLT A) versus conventional SLT (SLT B), Outcome 3 Expressive language: spoken.

Comparison 13 Operant training SLT (SLT A) versus conventional SLT (SLT B), Outcome 4 Expressive language: written.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 13.4

Comparison 13 Operant training SLT (SLT A) versus conventional SLT (SLT B), Outcome 4 Expressive language: written.

Comparison 13 Operant training SLT (SLT A) versus conventional SLT (SLT B), Outcome 5 Severity of impairment.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 13.5

Comparison 13 Operant training SLT (SLT A) versus conventional SLT (SLT B), Outcome 5 Severity of impairment.

Comparison 14 SLT versus no SLT (6‐month follow‐up), Outcome 1 Functional communication.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 14.1

Comparison 14 SLT versus no SLT (6‐month follow‐up), Outcome 1 Functional communication.

Comparison 14 SLT versus no SLT (6‐month follow‐up), Outcome 2 Receptive language: auditory comprehension.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 14.2

Comparison 14 SLT versus no SLT (6‐month follow‐up), Outcome 2 Receptive language: auditory comprehension.

Comparison 14 SLT versus no SLT (6‐month follow‐up), Outcome 3 Expressive language: naming.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 14.3

Comparison 14 SLT versus no SLT (6‐month follow‐up), Outcome 3 Expressive language: naming.

Comparison 14 SLT versus no SLT (6‐month follow‐up), Outcome 4 Expressive language: repetition.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 14.4

Comparison 14 SLT versus no SLT (6‐month follow‐up), Outcome 4 Expressive language: repetition.

Comparison 14 SLT versus no SLT (6‐month follow‐up), Outcome 5 Severity of impairment: Aphasia Battery Score (6‐month follow‐up).
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 14.5

Comparison 14 SLT versus no SLT (6‐month follow‐up), Outcome 5 Severity of impairment: Aphasia Battery Score (6‐month follow‐up).

Table 1. Characteristics of participants in included studies

Study ID

Number

Male/female

Age in years mean (standard deviation)

Post‐onset mean (standard deviation) (range)

Aphasia severity mean (standard deviation)

ACTNoW 2011

153

SLT: 40/36

Social support: 42/35

SLT: 71 (range 32 to 97)

Social support: 70 (range 40 to 92)

Admission to randomisation median 12 (interquartile range 9 to 16) days

TOMs

SLT: 1.9 (1.2) (severe n = 47)

Social support: 1.9 (1.1) (severe n = 51)

Bakheit 2007

97

Intensive: 26/25
Conventional: 21/25

Intensive: 71.2 (14.9) (range 26 to 92)
Conventional: 69.7 (15) (range 17 to 91)

Intensive: 34.2 (19.1) days
Conventional: 28.1 (14.9) days

WABAQ
Intensive: 44.2 (30.2)
Conventional: 37.9 (27.2)

Crerar 1996

8

Verb SLT: 2/1

Preposition SLT: 5/0

Verb SLT: 50.3 (8.5) (range 44 to 60)

Preposition SLT: 48.8 (13.77) (range 27 to 64)

Verb SLT: 87.33 (40.61) (range 60 to 134) months

Preposition SLT: 66.4 (20.96) (range 39 to 86)

WABAQ

Verb SLT: 76.2 (9.81)

Preposition SLT: 69.3 (16.58)

David 1982

133 (of 155 randomised)

Conventional: 35/30
Social support: 42/26

Conventional: 70 (8.7)
Social support: 65 (10.6)

Conventional: median 4 (range 4 to 266) weeks
Social support: median 5 (range 4 to 432) weeks

Baseline FCP scores for n = 98 retained until post‐therapy test

Conventional: 42.4 (20.8)
Social support: 46.1 (20.1)

Denes 1996

17

Intensive: 5/3
Conventional: 3/6

Intensive: 58.1 (11.8)
Conventional: 62.1 (8.7)

Intensive: 3.2 (1.8) months
Conventional: 3 (1.6) months

AAT
Intensive: severe
Conventional: severe

Di Carlo 1980

14

Programmed instruction: 7/0
Non‐programmed instruction: 7/0

Programmed instruction: 57.6 (9.2) (range 44 to 69)
Non‐programmed instruction: 55.3 (13) (range 32 to 70)

Programmed instruction: 24.7 (23.6) (range 0 to 66) months
Non‐programmed instruction: 16.3 (16.9) (range 1 to 38) months

Programmed instruction: severe
Non‐programmed instruction: severe

Doesborgh 2004

18 (of 19 randomised)

Computer‐mediated: 4/4
No SLT: 5/5

Computer‐mediated: 62 (9.0)
No SLT: 65 (12.0)

Computer‐mediated: 13 (range 11 to 16) months
No SLT: 13 (range 11 to 17) months

Computer‐mediated: ANELT‐ A 34 (9); BNT 63 (37)
No SLT: ANELT‐A 29 (12); BNT 74 (35)

Drummond 1981

8

Not reported

Gesture cue: 52.9 (6.0)
Conventional: 50.04 (4.5)

Gesture cue: 15.3 (4.1) (range 10 to 20) months
Conventional: 17.8 (7.1) (range 9 to 24) months

Not reported

Elman 1999

24

Conventional: 7/5
Social support: 6/6

Conventional: 58.3 (11.4) (range 38 to 79)
Social support: 60.7 (10.6) (range 47 to 80)

Conventional: 32.5 (28.7) (range 7 to 103) months
Social support: 71.7 (94.2) (range 7 to 336) months

Conventional: SPICA 7 mild to moderate, 7 moderate to severe
Social support: SPICA 7 mild to moderate, 7 moderate to severe

Hinckley 2001

12

Functional SLT: 5/1
Conventional SLT: 6/0

Functional: 51.6 (15)
Conventional: 50.3 (13.6)

Functional: 26.8 (20.1) (range 6 to 58) months
Conventional: 26.8 (37.6) (range 4 to 102) months

BDAE Severity Rating
Functional: 2.5 (0.8)
Conventional: 1.83 (0.9)

Yao 2005i

60

Group SLT: unclear
No SLT: unclear
(Yao 2005: 50/34)

Group SLT: unclear
No SLT: unclear
(Yao 2005: < 40 years = 3; 40s = 23; 50s = 23; 60s = 25; 70s = 8; > 80 years = 2)

Not reported

Not reported

Yao 2005ii

54

Group SLT: unclear
No SLT: unclear
(Yao 2005: 50/34)

Group SLT: unclear
No SLT: unclear
(Yao 2005: < 40 years = 3; 40s = 23; 50s = 23; 60s = 25; 70s = 8; > 80 years = 2)

Not reported

Not reported

Yao 2005iii

54

Group SLT: unclear
No SLT: unclear
(Yao 2005: 50/34)

Group SLT: unclear
No SLT: unclear
(Yao 2005: < 40 years = 3; 40s = 23; 50s = 23; 60s = 25; 70s = 8; > 80 years = 2)

Not reported

Not reported

Katz 1997i

42 (reported data on 36)

Computer‐mediated: unclear
No SLT: unclear
(Katz 1997: 44/11)

Computer‐mediated: 61.6 (10)
No SLT: 62.8 (5.1)

Computer‐mediated: 6.2 (5.2) years
No SLT: 8.5 (5.4) years

PICA overall percentile; WABAQ Computer‐mediated: 57.3 (17.9); 68.9 (24.3).
No SLT: 59.5 (16.2); 72.2 (24.8)

Katz 1997ii

40 (of 42 randomised)

Computer‐mediated: unclear
Computer placebo: unclear
(Katz 1997: 44/11)

Computer‐mediated: 61.6 (10)
Computer placebo: 66.4 (6)

Computer‐mediated: 6.2 (5.2) years
Computer placebo: 5.4 (4.6) years

PICA overall percentile; WABAQ Computer‐mediated: 57.3 (17.9); 68.9 (24.3)
Computer‐placebo: 51.9 (20.3); 61.9 (29.5)

Laska 2011

123

SLT: 33/29

No SLT: 23/38

SLT: 76 (range 38 to 94)

No SLT: 79 (range 39 to 94)

SLT: 3 (25th‐75th; 2 to 4) days

No SLT: 3 (25th‐75th; 2 to 4) days

ANELT‐A median (25th to 75th)

SLT: 1 (0 to 1.4)

No SLT: 1 (0 to 1.4)

Leal 1993

94

Conventional: 38/21

Volunteer‐facilitated: 22/13

Conventional: 56 (17)
Volunteer‐facilitated: 59 (13)

Within first month after stroke

Conventional: moderate‐severe
Volunteer‐facilitated: moderate‐severe

Lincoln 1982i

12

SLT/operant train: 3/3
SLT/Social support: 4/2

SLT/operant train: 54.33 (6.68) (range 45 to 63)

SLT/social support: 51.33 (7.97) (range 39 to 63)

SLT/operant train: 3.17 (1.60) (range 1 to 5) months
SLT/social support: 5.17 (3.43) (range 1 to 10) months

SLT/operant train: moderate
SLT/social support: moderate

Lincoln 1982ii

12

Operant train/SLT: 5/1
Social support/SLT: 5/1

Operant train/SLT: 57.67 (5.72) (range 51 to 64)
Social support/SLT: 42.33 (16.91) (range 28 to 60)

Operant train/SLT: 2.33 (1.55) (range 1 to 5) months
Social support/SLT: 8.83 (13.59) (range 1 to 36) months

Operant train/SLT: moderate
Social support/SLT: moderate

Lincoln 1982iii

18

Conventional SLT: 7/5
Social support: 5/1

Conventional SLT:52.83 (7.18) (range 39 to 63)
Social support: 42.33 (16.91) (range 28 to 60)

Conventional SLT: 4.17 (2.76) (range 1 to 10) months
Social support: 8.83 (13.59) (range 1 to 36) months

Conventional SLT: moderate
Social support: moderate

Lincoln 1984a

(data for 58% of randomised participants)

191
(of 327 randomised)

Conventional: unclear
No SLT: unclear
(Lincoln 1984a:109/ 82)

Conventional: unclear
No SLT: unclear
Lincoln 1984a: 68.2 (10.2) (range 38 to 92)

Conventional: 10 weeks
No SLT: 10 weeks

Not reported

Lincoln 1984b

12

Operant train: 4/2

Placebo: 5/1

Operant train: 52.33 (11.50) (range 32 to 64)
Placebo: 52.5 (14.9) (range 26 to 66)

Operant train: 5.5 (4.89) (range 1 to 12) months
Placebo: 2.83 (2.32) (range 1 to 7) months

Operant train: severe
Placebo: severe

Liu 2006

36

SLT: 9/10

No SLT: 10/7

SLT: 7 = 40 to 65 years; 12 = 65 to 80 years

No SLT: 8 = 40 to 65 years; 9 = 65 to 80 years

SLT: 8 = 7 to 20 days; 11 = 20 to 45 days

No SLT: 7 = 7 to 20 days; 10 = 20 to 45 days

BDAE

SLT: 60.48 (11.83)

No SLT: 58.22 (5.06)

Lyon 1997

30

Functional: unclear
No SLT: unclear
(Lyon 1997: person with aphasia: 8/2; carer: 4/6; communication partner: 1/9)

Functional: unclear
No SLT: unclear
(Lyon 1997: person with aphasia: 68.6 (12.1) (range 54 to 86); carer 60.2 (14.9) (range 28 to 84); communication partner: 44.9 (17.5) (range 25 to 74))

Functional: unclear
No SLT: unclear
(Lyon 1997: 43.5 (32.2) months)

Functional: unclear
No SLT: unclear
(Lyon 1997: receptive = mild; expressive = moderate)

MacKay 1988

95
(of 96 randomised)

MacKay 1988: 46/49

MacKay 1988: median 75

MacKay 1988: mean 30 months

Not reported

Meikle 1979

31

Volunteer‐facilitated: 12/3
Conventional: 10/6

Volunteer‐facilitated: 67.2 (8.6)
Conventional: 64.8 (7.9)

Volunteer‐facilitated: 30.9 (29.5) (range 4 to 115) weeks
Conventional: 39.8 (69.4) (range 4 to 268) weeks

PICA percentile volunteer‐facilitated: 53.9 (23.5)
Conventional: 55.8 (19.78)

Meinzer 2007

20

Constraint‐induced: 7/3 Volunteer‐facilitated: 9/1

Constraint‐induced: 50.2 (10.13)
Volunteer‐facilitated: 62 (8.9)

Constraint‐induced: 30.7 (18.9) (range 6 to 72) months
Volunteer‐facilitated: 46.5 (17.2) (range 24 to 79) months

AAT profile score
Constraint‐induced: 5 mild, 3 moderate, 2 severe
Volunteer‐facilitated: 3 mild, 6 moderate, 1 severe

ORLA 2006

13

Intensive SLT: 6
Conventional SLT: 7

Intensive SLT: 61.4 (9.72) (range 48.44 to 74.5)
Conventional SLT: 53.1 (18.1) (range 31.34 to 77.98).

Intensive SLT: 36.2 (28.2) (range 8.6 to 69.8) months
Conventional SLT: 43.6 (51.1) (range 7.3 to 154) months

WABAQ

Intensive SLT: 51.1 (17.8) (range 28.0 to 69.4)
Conventional SLT: 55.1 (18) (range 34.1 to 77.1)

ORLA 2010

25

Computer: 8/3

Therapist: 8/6

Computer: 56.6 (9.2) (range 41.7 to 68)

Therapist: 61.1 (14.8) (range 35.2 to 81.7)

Computer: 66.7 (71.5) (range 13.8 to 253.2) months

Therapist: 41.3 (45.7) (range 12.2 to 166) months

WABAQ

Computer: 62.0 (19.9)

Therapist: 47.3 (27.9)

Prins 1989

21

STACDAP: 5/5
Conventional: 5/6

STACDAP: 70.3 (range 58 to 83)
Conventional: 66 (range 45 to 78)

STACDAP: 15.2 (range 3 to 35) months
Conventional: 15.2 (range 3 to 36) months

STACDAP: FE‐scale 2.6 (0 to 6), oral comp (BDAE and Token Test) 26.4 (0 to 46)
Conventional: FE‐scale 2.7 (0 to 9), oral comp (BDAE and Token Test) 29.6 (2 to 48)

Pulvermuller 2001

17

Constraint‐induced: 6/4
Conventional: 6/1

Constraint‐induced: 55.4 (10.9)
Conventional: 53.9 (7.4)

Constraint‐induced: 98.2 (74.2) months
Conventional: 24 (20.6) months

Constraint‐induced: 2 mild, 5 moderate, 3 severe
Conventional: 2 mild, 4 moderate, 1 severe

RATS

58

Semantic: 18/11
Phonological: 15/14

Semantic: 66 (10)
Phonological: 58 (14)

Semantic: mean 4 (range 3 to 5) months
Phonological: mean 4 (range 3 to 5) months

ANELT‐A score
Semantic: 24.8 (11)
Phonological: 23.3 (8)

RATS‐2

80

Cognitive linguistic: 14/24

Communicative: 24/18

Cognitive linguistic: 68 (13)

Communicative: 67 (15)

Cognitive linguistic: 22 (range 11 to 37) days

Communicative: 23 (9 to 49) days

ANELT‐A score

Cognitive linguistic: 21.4 (11.0)

Communicative: 21.0 (11.1)

Rochon 2005

5

Sentence mapping: 0/3
Social support: 0/2

Sentence mapping: range 31 to 74
Social support: range 32 to 82

Sentence mapping: range 2 to 9 years
Social support: range 2 to 4 years

Sentence mapping: BDAE 1 to 2, phrase length 2.5 to 4
Social support: BDAE 1 to 2, phrase length 4

Shewan 1984i

52

Language‐orientated: 18/10
Conventional: 14/10

Language‐orientated: 62.18 (range 29 to 82)
Conventional: 65.63 (range 48 to 85)

Language‐orientated: range 2 to 4 weeks
Conventional: range 2 to 4 weeks

Language‐orientated: 9 mild, 6 moderate, 13 severe
Conventional: 8 mild, 3 moderate, 13 severe

Shewan 1984ii

53

Language‐orientated: 18/10
Social support: 14/11

Language‐orientated: 62.18 (range 29 to 82)
Social support: 66.12 (range 39 to 82)

Language‐orientated: range 2 to 4 weeks
Social support: range 2 to 4 weeks

Language‐orientated: 9 mild, 6 moderate, 13 severe
Social support: 7 mild, 5 moderate, 13 severe

Shewan 1984iii

49

Conventional: 14/10
Social support: 14/11

Conventional: 65.63 (range 48 to 85)
Social support: 66.12 (range 39 to 82)

Conventional: range 2 to 4 weeks
Social support: range 2 to 4 weeks

Conventional: 8 mild, 3 moderate, 13 severe
Social support: 7 mild, 5 moderate, 13 severe

Smania 2006

33 (of 41 randomised)

Conventional: 11/4
No SLT: 12/6

Conventional: 65.73 (8.78) (range 48 to 77)
No SLT: 65.67 (9.83) (range 41 to 77)

Conventional: 17.4 (24.07) (range 2 to 36) months
No SLT: 10.39 (7.96) (range 3 to 32) months

Aphasia severity: unclear
Neurological severity:
Conventional: 6.07 (4.3) (range 0 to16)
No SLT: 6.94 (5.83) (range 0 to 15)

Smith 1981i

33

Intensive: 12/4
No SLT: 10/7

Intensive: 62
No SLT: 65

Not reported

MTDDA (mean error score percentage)
Intensive: 39
No SLT: 26

Smith 1981ii

31

Conventional: 10/4
No SLT: 10/7

Conventional: 63
No SLT: 65

Not reported

MTDDA (mean error score percentage)
Conventional: 44
No SLT: 26

Smith 1981iii

30

Intensive: 12/4
Conventional: 10/4

Intensive: 62
Conventional: 63

Not reported

MTDDA (mean error score percentage)
Intensive: 39
Conventional: 44

Van Steenbrugge 1981

10

Task‐specific: 0/5
Conventional: 2/3

Task‐specific: 61.8 (17.05) (range 40 to 77)
Conventional: 63.6 (10.9) (range 48 to 77)

Task‐specific: 21 (22.4) (range 5 to 60) months
Conventional: 20.6 (23.7) (range 5 to 60) months

FE‐scale and M‐S Comprehension Test
Task‐specific: 4 (1.9)
Conventional: 6 (2.9)

VERSE 2011

59

Intensive SLT: 14/18

Conventional SLT: 15/12

Intensive SLT: 70.3 (12.8)

Conventional SLT: 67.7 (15.4)

Intensive SLT:3.2 (2.2) days

Conventional SLT: 3.4 (2.2) days

WABAQ median (IQR)

Intensive SLT: 31.0 (47)

Conventional SLT: 9.0 (34.1)

Wertz 1981

67

Not reported

(15 weeks after stroke)
Group SLT: 60.24 (range 40 to 79)
Conventional: 57.07 (range 41 to 79)

Group SLT: 4 weeks
Conventional: 4 weeks

(15 weeks after stroke)
PICA overall percentile
Group SLT: 45.21 (range 15 to 74)
Conventional: 45.62 (range 16 to 74)

Wertz 1986i

78

Conventional: unclear
No SLT: unclear

Conventional: 59.2 (6.7)
No SLT: 57.2 (6.8)

Conventional: 6.6 (4.8) weeks
No SLT: 7.8 (6.6) weeks

PICA overall percentile Conventional: 46.59 (16.05)
No SLT: 49.18 (19.46)

Wertz 1986ii

83

Volunteer‐facilitated: 37/6
No SLT: unclear

Volunteer‐facilitated: 60.2 (6.7)
No SLT: 57.2 (6.8)

Volunteer‐facilitated: 7.1 (5.8) weeks
No SLT: 7.8 (6.6) weeks

PICA overall percentile
Volunteer‐facilitated: 49.97 (22.77)
No SLT: 49.18 (19.46)

Wertz 1986iii

81

Volunteer‐facilitated: 37/6
Conventional: unclear

Volunteer‐facilitated:60.2 (6.7)
Conventional: 59.2 (6.7)

Volunteer‐facilitated: 7.1 (5.8) weeks
Conventional: 6.6 (4.8) weeks

PICA overall percentile
Volunteer‐facilitated: 49.97 (22.77)
Conventional: 46.59 (16.05)

Wu 2004

236

Conventional: unclear
No SLT: unclear
(Wu 2004: 159/ 77)

Conventional: (range 39 to 81)
No SLT: (range 40 to 78)

Not reported

Not reported

Zhang 2007i

36

SLT: 10/9

No SLT: 11/6

SLT: 63.40 (7.82)

No SLT: 59.36 (7.69)

SLT: 29.45 (10.63) days

No SLT: 27.80 (9.79) days

ABC AQ

SLT: 48.70 (33.49)

No SLT: 49.87 (26.83)

Zhang 2007ii

37

SLT: 11/9

No SLT: 11/6

SLT: 60.80 (8.13)

No SLT: 59.36 (7.69)

SLT: 28.10 (9.15) days

No SLT: 27.80 (9.79) days

ABC AQ

SLT: 48.43 (29.18)

No SLT: 49.87 (26.83)

Zhao 2000

138

Not reported

Not reported

Not reported

Not reported

AAT: Aachen Aphasia Test
ABC: Aphasia Battery of Chinese
ANELT: Amsterdam‐Nijmegen Everyday Language Test
AQ: Aphasia Quotient
BDAE: Boston Diagnostic Aphasia Examination
BNT: Boston Naming Test
FCP: Functional Communication Profile
FE‐scale: Functional‐Expression scale
IQR: interquartile range
MTDDA: Minnesota Test for the Differential Diagnosis of Aphasia
M‐S Comprehension Test: Morpho‐Syntactic Comprehension Test
PICA: Porch Index of Communicative Abilities
SLT: Speech and Language therapy/therapist
SPICA: Shortened Porch Index of Communicative Abilities
STACDAP: Systematic Therapy for Auditory Comprehension Disorders in Aphasic Patients
TOMs: Therapy Outcome Measures
WAB: Western Aphasia Battery
WABAQ: Western Aphasia Battery Aphasia Quotient

Figures and Tables -
Table 1. Characteristics of participants in included studies
Table 2. Details of dropouts

Study ID

Dropouts by intervention

Reasons

Follow‐up

Reasons

ACTNoW 2011

Conventional: 8

Social support: 20

Conventional: 4 died, 3 declined, 1 post‐randomisation exclusion, 2 non‐study SLT

Social support: 7 died, 12 declined, 1 post‐randomisation exclusion, 18 non‐study SLT

No follow‐up

N/A

Bakheit 2007

Intensive: 16
Conventional: 8

Intensive: 2 died, 14 withdrew
Conventional: 8 withdrew
(Across trial: 13 withdrew, 4 died, 4 illness, 3 not tolerating therapy, 2 relocation, 1 further stroke, 1 diagnosis revised)

Intensive: 4
Conventional: 3

Not reported

David 1982

Conventional: 23
Social support: 36

Conventional: 4 died, 5 new stroke, 2 self discharge, 5 illness, 3 moved, 4 other
Social support: 6 died, 5 new stroke, 5 transport, 6 self‐discharge, 3 illness, 4 volunteer issues, 2 relocated, 5 other undescribed

Conventional: 11
Social support: 12

Not reported

Doesborgh 2004

Computer‐mediated: 1
No SLT: 0

Computer‐mediated: 1 illness
No SLT: 0

No follow‐up

N/A

Elman 1999

Conventional: 2
Social support: 3

Conventional: 1 transport, 1 time constraints,
Social support: 2 time constraints, 1 medical complications

Conventional: 0
Social support: 0

Katz 1997i

Computer‐mediated: 0
No SLT: 6

Prolonged illness, new stroke, death

Computer‐mediated: 0
No SLT: 0

Katz 1997ii

Computer‐mediated: 0
No SLT (computer placebo): 2

Prolonged illness, new stroke, death

Computer‐mediated: 0
No SLT (computer placebo): 0

Laska 2011

SLT: 3

No SLT: 6

SLT: 1 death, 2 illness

No SLT: 3 declined, 3 illness

At 6 months

SLT: 9

No SLT: 6

SLT: 4 death, 2 declined, 3 illness

No SLT: 6 death

Leal 1993

Conventional: 21
Volunteer‐facilitated: 13

Conventional: 2 death, 3 new stroke, 3 transport, 4 declined, 2 moved, 5 illness, 2 transfer
Volunteer‐facilitated: 1 death, 1 new stroke, 3 transport, 4 declined, 2 moved, 0 illness, 2 transfer

Conventional: 0
Volunteer‐facilitated: 0

Lincoln 1982i

Social support: ?
Operant training: ?
(13: groups unclear)

Homesickness, illness

No follow‐up

N/A

Lincoln 1982ii

Social support: ?
Operant training: ?
(13: groups unclear)

Homesickness, illness

No follow‐up

N/A

Lincoln 1982iii

Social support: ?
Operant training: ?
(13: groups unclear)

Homesickness, illness

No follow‐up

N/A

Lincoln 1984a

Conventional: 78
No SLT: 79

Death, refused, illness, recovered, unsuitable, relocated

No follow‐up

N/A

MacKay 1988

Volunteer‐facilitated: 0
No SLT: 1

Not reported

No follow‐up

N/A

Meikle 1979

Conventional: 0
Volunteer‐facilitated: 2

Conventional: 0
Volunteer‐facilitated: 1 declined, 1 moved

No follow‐up

N/A

RATS

Semantic: 6
Phonological: 6

Semantic: 4 received < 40 hours treatment, 2 severe neurological illness
Phonological: 2 received < 40 hours treatment, 1 severe neurological illness, 3 ANELT score missing (2 declined, 1 missing)

No follow‐up

N/A

RATS‐2

Cognitive linguistic: 4

Communicative: 6

Cognitive linguistic: 3 illness, 1 refusal by therapist

Communicative: 1 illness, 5 declined

No follow‐up

N/A

Shewan 1984i

Language orientated: 6
Conventional: 1

Language orientated: 1 death, 2 relocation, 3 withdrew
Conventional: 1 death

No follow‐up

N/A

Shewan 1984ii

Language orientated: 6
Social support: 6

Language orientated: 1 death, 2 relocation, 3 withdrew
Social support: 1 death, 2 illness, 1 relocation, 2 withdrew

No follow‐up

N/A

Shewan 1984iii

Conventional: 1
Social support: 6

Conventional: 1 death
Social support: 1 death, 2 illness, 1 relocation, 2 withdrew

No follow‐up

N/A

Smania 2006

Conventional: 5
No SLT: 3

Conventional: 3 uncooperative, 2 illness
No SLT: 1 uncooperative, 2 illness

Conventional: 7
No SLT: 9

Conventional: 3 illness, 4 refused
No SLT: 1 death, 2 illness, 4 refused, 2 relocations

Smith 1981i

Intensive: 6
No SLT: not reported

Reasons not detailed
Additional 5 withdrawn but not advised of groupings

Intensive: 4
No SLT: not reported

Not reported

Smith 1981ii

Conventional: 2
No SLT: not reported

Reasons not detailed
Additional 5 withdrawn but not advised of groupings

Conventional: 4
No SLT: not reported

Not reported

Smith 1981iii

Intensive: 6
Conventional: 2

Reasons not detailed
Additional 5 withdrawn but not advised of groupings

Intensive: 4
Conventional: 4

Not reported

VERSE 2011

Intensive: 7

Conventional: 1

Intensive: 4 declined, 2 discharged early, 1 died.

Conventional: 1 declined

Intensive: 4

Conventional: 2

Intensive: 4 refused

Conventional: 1 refused, 1 death

Wertz 1981

Group: 17
Conventional: 16

22 self‐discharged (return home or declined to travel), 4 illness, 2 stroke, 3 died, 2 returned to work

No follow‐up

N/A

Wertz 1986i

Conventional: 7
No SLT: 5

Illness, new stroke

Conventional: 2
No SLT: 6

Illness, new stroke

Wertz 1986ii

Volunteer‐facilitated: 6
No SLT: 5

Illness, new stroke

Volunteer‐facilitated: 1
No SLT: 6

Illness, new stroke

Wertz 1986iii

Conventional: 7
Volunteer‐facilitated: 6

Illness, new stroke

Conventional: 2
Volunteer‐facilitated: 1

Illness, new stroke

ANELT: Amsterdam‐Nijmegen Everyday Language Test
SLT: speech and language therapy

Figures and Tables -
Table 2. Details of dropouts
Comparison 1. SLT versus no SLT

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Functional communication Show forest plot

8

346

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.30 [0.08, 0.52]

1.1 WAB (Spontaneous Speech)

2

55

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.14 [‐0.40, 0.69]

1.2 ANELT‐A

1

18

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.88 [‐0.10, 1.87]

1.3 ANELT

1

114

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.15 [‐0.22, 0.52]

1.4 Functional Communication Profile

2

103

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.25 [‐0.16, 0.66]

1.5 Chinese Functional Communication Examination

2

56

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.77 [0.18, 1.37]

2 Receptive language: auditory comprehension Show forest plot

8

361

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.06 [‐0.15, 0.27]

2.1 PICA subtest

2

55

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.15 [‐0.40, 0.69]

2.2 Token Test

3

136

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.08 [‐0.27, 0.43]

2.3 Aphasia Battery of Chinese

2

56

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.08 [‐0.49, 0.65]

2.4 Norsk Grunntest for Afasi

1

114

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.01 [‐0.38, 0.36]

3 Receptive language: reading comprehension Show forest plot

6

214

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.29 [0.00, 0.58]

3.1 Reading Comprehension Battery for Aphasia

2

103

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.11 [‐0.30, 0.52]

3.2 PICA reading subtest

2

55

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.12 [‐0.42, 0.67]

3.3 Aphasia Battery of Chinese

2

56

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.88 [0.28, 1.48]

4 Receptive language: other Show forest plot

4

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

4.1 PICA Gestural subtest

4

158

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

8.04 [1.55, 14.52]

5 Receptive language: gesture comprehension (unnamed) Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

5.1 Gesture (unnamed)

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

5.2 Gesture (unnamed) 2‐month follow‐up

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

6 Expressive language: naming Show forest plot

4

187

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.09 [‐0.20, 0.38]

6.1 Boston Naming Test

1

18

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.00 [‐0.93, 0.93]

6.2 WAB Naming subtest

2

55

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.27 [‐0.27, 0.82]

6.3 Norsk Grunntest for Afasi

1

114

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.02 [‐0.35, 0.39]

7 Expressive language: general Show forest plot

6

214

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.77 [0.14, 1.39]

7.1 PICA Verbal subtest

4

158

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.26 [‐0.07, 0.59]

7.2 Aphasia Battery of Chinese (verbal presentation)

2

56

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

1.99 [1.03, 2.95]

8 Expressive language: written Show forest plot

6

214

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.45 [0.16, 0.74]

8.1 PICA Writing subtest

2

55

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.34 [‐0.21, 0.89]

8.2 PICA Graphic

2

103

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.25 [‐0.16, 0.66]

8.3 Aphasia Battery of Chinese (Writing)

2

56

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.02 [0.41, 1.63]

9 Expressive language: written copying Show forest plot

2

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

9.1 PICA Copying subtest

2

55

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

3.88 [‐5.75, 13.50]

10 Expressive language: repetition Show forest plot

3

169

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.06 [‐0.24, 0.37]

10.1 WAB Repetition subtest

2

55

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.28 [‐0.27, 0.82]

10.2 Norsk Grunntest for Afasi

1

114

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.04 [‐0.40, 0.33]

11 Severity of impairment: Aphasia Battery Score (+ PICA) Show forest plot

11

593

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.55 [‐0.14, 1.25]

11.1 Aphasia Quotient (CRRCAE)

2

84

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.02 [‐0.43, 0.47]

11.2 Porch Index of Communicative Ability

4

165

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.26 [‐0.07, 0.58]

11.3 BDAE (Chinese)

1

36

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.52 [‐0.15, 1.18]

11.4 Aphasia Battery of Chinese (ABC)

2

56

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.23 [‐0.34, 0.80]

11.5 Norsk Grunntest for Afasi (Coefficient)

1

114

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.03 [‐0.34, 0.40]

11.6 Chinese Aphasia Measurement

1

138

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

3.84 [3.25, 4.43]

12 Severity of impairment: Aphasia Battery Score (3‐month follow‐up) Show forest plot

2

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

12.1 Aphasia Quotient (CRRCAE) 3‐month follow‐up

2

84

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

20.74 [‐12.01, 53.48]

13 Psychosocial: MAACL Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

13.1 Anxiety Scale (MAACL)

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

13.2 Depression Scale (MAACL)

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

13.3 Hostility Scale (MAACL)

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

14 Number of dropouts (any reason) Show forest plot

11

837

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.82 [0.60, 1.12]

15 Compliance with Allocated Intervention Show forest plot

2

164

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.04 [0.34, 3.15]

Figures and Tables -
Comparison 1. SLT versus no SLT
Comparison 2. SLT versus social support and stimulation

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Functional communication Show forest plot

2

232

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.04 [‐0.22, 0.29]

1.1 Functional Communication Profile

1

96

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.10 [‐0.50, 0.30]

1.2 TOMs

1

136

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.13 [‐0.20, 0.47]

2 Functional communication ‐ follow‐up measures Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

2.1 FCP (3‐month follow‐up)

1

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

2.2 FCP (6‐month follow‐up)

1

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

3 Receptive language: auditory comprehension Show forest plot

2

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

3.1 PCB (Sentence Comprehension)

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

3.2 PCB (Picture Comprehension)

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

3.3 Token Test

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

4 Receptive language: other Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

4.1 PICA Gestural subtest

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

5 Expressive language: single words Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

5.1 Object Naming Test (ONT)

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

5.2 Word fluency

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

6 Expressive language: sentences Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

6.1 Caplan & Hanna Test: total

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

6.2 Caplan & Hanna Test: treated

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

6.3 Caplan & Hanna Test: untreated

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

7 Expressive language: picture description Show forest plot

2

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

7.1 Picture description

2

23

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.26 [‐0.62, 1.15]

7.2 Picture description with structure modelling: treated items

1

5

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.45 [‐1.44, 2.33]

7.3 Picture description with structure modelling: untreated items

1

5

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.41 [‐1.46, 2.28]

8 Expressive language: overall spoken Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

8.1 PICA verbal subtest

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

9 Expressive language: written Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

9.1 PICA graphic subtests

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

10 Severity of impairment: Aphasia Battery Score Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

10.1 PICA

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

11 Psychosocial Show forest plot

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

11.1 COAST

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

11.2 Carer COAST

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

12 Number of dropouts for any reason Show forest plot

5

413

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.54 [0.34, 0.85]

13 Compliance with Allocated Intervention Show forest plot

5

409

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.18 [0.09, 0.37]

14 Economic outcomes Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

14.1 Cost Data

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

14.2 Utility Data

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

Figures and Tables -
Comparison 2. SLT versus social support and stimulation
Comparison 3. Experimental SLT (SLT A) versus conventional SLT (SLT B)

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Functional communication Show forest plot

3

43

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.41 [‐1.02, 0.21]

1.1 CETI

1

12

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.86 [‐2.06, 0.35]

1.2 Functional expression

2

31

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.25 [‐0.96, 0.46]

2 Functional communication: catalogue ordering Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

2.1 Telephone order (change from baseline)

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

2.2 Telephone order (+ concurrent task) (change from baseline)

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

2.3 Written order (change from baseline)

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

2.4 Written order (+ concurrent task) (change from baseline)

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

3 Receptive language: word comprehension Show forest plot

2

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

3.1 Word comprehension (BDAE subtest)

2

33

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.02 [‐0.70, 0.67]

3.2 Identify body part (BDAE subtest)

1

21

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.22 [‐1.08, 0.64]

3.3 Peabody PVT

1

12

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.13 [‐1.01, 1.26]

4 Receptive language: other auditory comprehension Show forest plot

5

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

4.1 Sentence comprehension

1

21

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.51 [‐1.39, 0.36]

4.2 AAT comprehension subtest

1

17

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.47 [‐0.51, 1.45]

4.3 Token Test

5

74

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.00 [‐0.46, 0.46]

5 Receptive language: auditory comprehension (treated items) Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

5.1 Word comprehension (phonology)

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

5.2 Word comprehension (lexicon)

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

5.3 Sentence comprehension (morphosyntax)

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

6 Receptive language: reading comprehension Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

6.1 Reading comprehension

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

7 Receptive language: other comprehension Show forest plot

3

36

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.29 [‐0.97, 0.39]

7.1 PICA gestural subtest

3

36

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.29 [‐0.97, 0.39]

8 Expressive language: naming Show forest plot

7

98

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.09 [‐0.31, 0.50]

8.1 Object Naming Test (ONT)

3

36

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.25 [‐0.92, 0.41]

8.2 AmAT naming test

2

31

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.30 [‐0.41, 1.01]

8.3 Thorndike‐Lorge Word List

1

14

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.23 [‐0.83, 1.28]

8.4 AAT naming subtest

1

17

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.34 [‐0.64, 1.31]

9 Expressive language: naming (change from baseline) Show forest plot

2

29

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.61 [‐0.15, 1.36]

9.1 Oral naming: PALPA (change from baseline)

1

12

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.44 [‐0.71, 1.59]

9.2 Naming subtest (AAT) (change from baseline)

1

17

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.73 [‐0.26, 1.72]

10 Expressive language: naming (follow‐up) Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

10.1 Naming (3‐week follow‐up)

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

11 Expressive language: spoken sentence Show forest plot

2

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

11.1 Sentence construction (AmAT)

2

31

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.15 [‐3.26, 2.95]

11.2 Sentence construction (AmAT) 3‐week follow‐up

1

10

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.60 [‐3.27, 2.07]

12 Expressive language: treated items Show forest plot

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

12.1 Naming (treated)

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

12.2 Sentence construction (treated)

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

12.3 Naming (treated: 3‐week follow‐up)

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

12.4 Sentence construction (treated: 3‐week follow‐up)

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

13 Expressive language: connected discourse Show forest plot

3

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

13.1 Picture description

2

24

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.20 [‐1.04, 0.64]

13.2 PICA verbal subtest

3

36

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.31 [‐0.99, 0.37]

14 Expressive language: fluency Show forest plot

2

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

14.1 Word fluency

2

24

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐8.19 [‐13.90, ‐2.47]

15 Expressive language: repetition Show forest plot

2

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

15.1 AAT repetition subtest

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

15.2 AAT repetition subtest (change from baseline)

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

16 Expressive language: written Show forest plot

5

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

16.1 PICA graphic subtest

3

36

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.66 [‐1.35, 0.03]

16.2 Written naming: PALPA (change from baseline)

1

12

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.25 [‐1.39, 0.88]

16.3 Written subtest (AAT) (change from baseline)

1

17

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.20 [0.14, 2.25]

17 Severity of impairment: Aphasia Battery Score Show forest plot

4

53

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.24 [‐0.80, 0.32]

17.1 PICA overall

3

36

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.47 [‐1.15, 0.22]

17.2 AAT overall

1

17

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.23 [‐0.74, 1.20]

18 Severity of impairment: change from baseline Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

18.1 AAT overall (change from baseline)

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

19 Number of dropouts for any reason Show forest plot

1

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

20 Compliance with Allocated Intervention Show forest plot

1

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

Figures and Tables -
Comparison 3. Experimental SLT (SLT A) versus conventional SLT (SLT B)
Comparison 4. Intensive SLT (SLT A) versus conventional SLT (SLT B)

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Functional communication Show forest plot

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

1.1 Functional Communication Profile

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

1.2 Discourse Analysis

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

2 Functional communication (follow‐up) Show forest plot

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

2.1 Functional Communication Profile (6‐month follow‐up)

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

2.2 Discourse Analysis (6‐month follow‐up)

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

3 Receptive language: auditory comprehension Show forest plot

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

3.1 AAT comprehension subtest

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

3.2 Token Test

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

4 Receptive language: auditory comprehension (change from baseline) Show forest plot

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

4.1 AAT Comprehension subtest

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

4.2 Token Test

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

5 Expressive language: spoken Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

5.1 AAT naming subtest

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

5.2 AAT repetition subtest

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

6 Expressive language: spoken (change from baseline scores) Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

6.1 AAT naming subtest

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

6.2 AAT repetition subtest

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

7 Expressive language: written (change from baseline scores) Show forest plot

1

17

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

8.9 [1.81, 15.99]

7.1 AAT written subtest

1

17

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

8.9 [1.81, 15.99]

8 Severity of impairment: Aphasia Battery Score Show forest plot

4

162

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.35 [0.04, 0.66]

8.1 Aphasia Quotient (WAB)

3

145

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.36 [0.03, 0.70]

8.2 AAT overall

1

17

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.23 [‐0.74, 1.20]

9 Severity of impairment: Aphasia Battery Score (change from baseline) Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

9.1 AAT profile (change from baseline)

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

10 Severity of impairment: Aphasia Battery Score (follow‐up) Show forest plot

2

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

10.1 Aphasia Quotient (WAB) 3‐month follow‐up

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

10.2 Aphasia Quotient (WAB) 6‐month follow‐up

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

11 Number of dropouts for any reason Show forest plot

3

186

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

2.01 [1.07, 3.79]

12 Compliance with Allocated Intervention Show forest plot

2

166

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

5.13 [0.84, 31.18]

Figures and Tables -
Comparison 4. Intensive SLT (SLT A) versus conventional SLT (SLT B)
Comparison 5. Group SLT (SLT A) versus one‐to‐one SLT (SLT B)

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Functional communication Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

1.1 Pragmatic Protocol ‐ 1 month

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

1.2 Pragmatic Protocol ‐ 6 months

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

1.3 Pragmatic Protocol ‐ 12 months

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

2 Receptive language: auditory comprehension Show forest plot

2

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

2.1 Token Test

2

51

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.25 [‐0.30, 0.81]

2.2 AAT comprehension subtest

1

17

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.47 [‐0.51, 1.45]

3 Receptive language: other Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

3.1 PICA gestural subtest

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

4 Expressive language: spoken Show forest plot

2

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

4.1 AAT naming subtest

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

4.2 PICA verbal subtest

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

5 Expressive language: repetition Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

5.1 AAT repetition subtest

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

6 Expressive language: written Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

6.1 PICA graphic

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

7 Severity of impairment: Aphasia Battery Score Show forest plot

3

105

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.17 [‐0.22, 0.56]

7.1 Aphasia Quotient CRRCAE

1

54

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.30 [‐0.24, 0.84]

7.2 PICA overall

1

34

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.06 [‐0.73, 0.61]

7.3 AAT overall

1

17

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.23 [‐0.74, 1.20]

8 Severity of impairment: Aphasia Battery Score (3‐month follow‐up) Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

8.1 Aphasia Quotient CRRCAE (3‐month follow‐up)

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

9 Number of dropouts for any reason Show forest plot

1

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

Figures and Tables -
Comparison 5. Group SLT (SLT A) versus one‐to‐one SLT (SLT B)
Comparison 6. Volunteer‐facilitated SLT (SLT A) versus professional SLT (SLT B)

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Functional communication Show forest plot

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

1.1 CADL

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

1.2 Functional Communication Profile

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

2 Receptive language: auditory comprehension Show forest plot

2

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

2.1 Token Test

2

88

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.06 [‐0.36, 0.47]

2.2 AAT subtest

1

20

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.37 [‐1.25, 0.52]

3 Receptive language: reading comprehension Show forest plot

2

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

3.1 Reading Comprehension Battery for Aphasia

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

3.2 AAT subtest

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

4 Receptive language: other Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

4.1 PICA gestural subtest

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

5 Expressive language: spoken Show forest plot

2

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

5.1 AAT naming subtest

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

5.2 PICA verbal subtest

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

6 Expressive language: repetition Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

6.1 AAT Repetition subtest

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

7 Expressive language: written Show forest plot

2

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

7.1 AAT written language subtest

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

7.2 PICA graphic subtests

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

8 Severity of impairment: Aphasia Battery Score Show forest plot

3

126

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.12 [‐0.47, 0.23]

8.1 PICA

2

106

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.06 [‐0.44, 0.32]

8.2 AAT

1

20

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.45 [‐1.34, 0.44]

9 Number of dropouts for any reason Show forest plot

3

206

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.95 [0.49, 1.85]

10 Compliance with allocated intervention Show forest plot

2

125

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.98 [0.52, 7.46]

Figures and Tables -
Comparison 6. Volunteer‐facilitated SLT (SLT A) versus professional SLT (SLT B)
Comparison 7. Computer‐mediated SLT (SLT A) versus professional SLT (SLT B)

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Functional communication Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

1.1 Discourse (words per minute)

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

1.2 Discourse (content information units per minute)

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

2 Receptive language: reading comprehension Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

2.1 WAB (Reading comprehension)

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

3 Expressive language: written Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

3.1 WAB (Writing)

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

4 Severity of impairment: Aphasia Battery Score Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

4.1 WAB AQ

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

Figures and Tables -
Comparison 7. Computer‐mediated SLT (SLT A) versus professional SLT (SLT B)
Comparison 8. Semantic SLT (SLT A) versus phonological SLT (SLT B)

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Functional communication Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

1.1 ANELT‐A

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

2 Receptive language: auditory Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

2.1 Semantic Association Test: PALPA (change from baseline)

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

2.2 Auditory lexical decision: PALPA (change from baseline)

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

3 Receptive language: reading Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

3.1 Synonym judgement: PALPA (change from baseline)

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

4 Expressive language: repetition Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

4.1 Non‐words: PALPA (change from baseline)

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

5 Number of dropouts for any reason Show forest plot

1

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

Figures and Tables -
Comparison 8. Semantic SLT (SLT A) versus phonological SLT (SLT B)
Comparison 9. Cognitive‐linguistic SLT (SLT A) versus communicative SLT (SLT B)

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Functional communication Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

1.1 ANELT‐A

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

2 Receptive language: other comprehension Show forest plot

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

2.1 Token Test

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

2.2 Semantic Association Test (Verbal)

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

2.3 Semantic Association (PALPA)

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

2.4 Auditory Lexical Decision (PALPA)

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

3 Expressive language: fluency Show forest plot

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

3.1 Word fluency (letters)

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

3.2 Word fluency (semantic)

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

4 Expressive language: repetition Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

4.1 Non‐word repetition (PALPA)

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

5 Number of dropouts for any reason Show forest plot

1

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

6 Compliance with Allocated Intervention Show forest plot

1

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

Figures and Tables -
Comparison 9. Cognitive‐linguistic SLT (SLT A) versus communicative SLT (SLT B)
Comparison 10. Verb comprehension SLT (SLT A) versus preposition comprehension SLT (SLT B)

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Receptive language: auditory comprehension Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

1.1 WAB Auditory Comprehension

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

2 Receptive language: reading Show forest plot

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

2.1 Computer‐Based Verb Test (treated items)

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

2.2 Computer‐Based Verb Test (untreated items)

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

2.3 Real World Verb Test (treated items)

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

2.4 Real World Verb Test (untreated items)

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

2.5 Computer‐Based Preposition Test (treated items)

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

2.6 Computer‐Based Preposition Test (untreated items)

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

2.7 Real World Preposition Test (treated items)

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

2.8 Real World Preposition Test (untreated items)

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

2.9 Morphology

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

3 Expressive language Show forest plot

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

3.1 WAB Naming subtest

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

3.2 WAB Fluency subtest

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

3.3 WAB Repetition subtest

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

4 Severity of impairment: Aphasia Battery Score Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

4.1 WAB AQ

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

Figures and Tables -
Comparison 10. Verb comprehension SLT (SLT A) versus preposition comprehension SLT (SLT B)
Comparison 11. Functional SLT (SLT A) versus conventional SLT (SLT B)

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Functional communication Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

1.1 CADL (change from baseline)

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

1.2 CETI

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

2 Functional communication: catalogue ordering Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

2.1 Telephone order (change from baseline)

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

2.2 Telephone order (+ concurrent task) (change from baseline)

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

2.3 Written order (change from baseline)

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

2.4 Written order (+ concurrent task) (change from baseline)

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

3 Expressive language: spoken Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

3.1 Oral naming: PALPA (change from baseline)

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

4 Expressive language: written Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

4.1 Written naming: PALPA (change from baseline)

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

Figures and Tables -
Comparison 11. Functional SLT (SLT A) versus conventional SLT (SLT B)
Comparison 12. Constraint‐Induced Language Therapy (SLT A) versus conventional SLT (SLT B)

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Receptive language: auditory comprehension Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

1.1 Token Test

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

1.2 AAT comprehension subtest

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

2 Expressive language: spoken Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

2.1 AAT naming subtest

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

3 Expressive language: repetition Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

3.1 AAT repetition subtest

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

4 Severity of impairment: Aphasia Battery Score Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

4.1 AAT overall

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

Figures and Tables -
Comparison 12. Constraint‐Induced Language Therapy (SLT A) versus conventional SLT (SLT B)
Comparison 13. Operant training SLT (SLT A) versus conventional SLT (SLT B)

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Receptive language: auditory comprehension Show forest plot

3

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

1.1 Word comprehension (BDAE subtest)

1

12

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.13 [‐1.01, 1.26]

1.2 Peabody PVT

1

12

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.13 [‐1.01, 1.26]

1.3 Token Test

3

36

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.23 [‐0.43, 0.89]

2 Receptive language: other Show forest plot

3

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

2.1 PICA gestural subtest

3

36

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.29 [‐0.97, 0.39]

3 Expressive language: spoken Show forest plot

3

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

3.1 Naming

3

36

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.25 [‐0.92, 0.41]

3.2 Word fluency

2

24

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐1.05 [‐1.93, ‐0.17]

3.3 Picture description

2

24

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.20 [‐1.04, 0.64]

3.4 PICA verbal subtest

3

36

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.31 [‐0.99, 0.37]

4 Expressive language: written Show forest plot

3

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

4.1 PICA graphic subtest

3

36

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.85 [‐1.69, ‐0.01]

5 Severity of impairment Show forest plot

3

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

5.1 PICA overall

3

36

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.74 [‐1.50, 0.01]

Figures and Tables -
Comparison 13. Operant training SLT (SLT A) versus conventional SLT (SLT B)
Comparison 14. SLT versus no SLT (6‐month follow‐up)

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Functional communication Show forest plot

1

99

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.32 [‐1.03, 0.39]

1.1 ANELT

1

99

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.32 [‐1.03, 0.39]

2 Receptive language: auditory comprehension Show forest plot

1

99

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.12 [‐3.25, 3.49]

2.1 Norsk Grunntest for Afasi

1

99

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.12 [‐3.25, 3.49]

3 Expressive language: naming Show forest plot

1

99

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.38 [‐2.87, 2.11]

3.1 Norsk Grunntest for Afasi

1

99

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.38 [‐2.87, 2.11]

4 Expressive language: repetition Show forest plot

1

98

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.40 [‐2.73, 1.93]

4.1 Norsk Grunntest for Afasi

1

98

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.40 [‐2.73, 1.93]

5 Severity of impairment: Aphasia Battery Score (6‐month follow‐up) Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

5.1 Norsk Grunntest for Afasi

1

99

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.5 [‐8.23, 7.23]

Figures and Tables -
Comparison 14. SLT versus no SLT (6‐month follow‐up)