Cited by 719Neurobiology of Language and BilingualismStroke Rehabilitation and RecoveryLanguage Development and Disorders

Intensity of Aphasia Therapy, Impact on Recovery

Bhogal, Sanjit K., Teasell, Robert, Speechley, Mark·2003·Stroke

Abstract

Background— It has been speculated that the conflicting results demonstrated across poststroke aphasia therapy studies might be related to differences in intensity of therapy provided across studies. The aim of this study is to investigate the relationship between intensity of aphasia therapy and aphasia recovery. Methods— A MEDLINE literature search was conducted to retrieve clinical trials investigating aphasia therapy after stroke. Changes in mean scores from each study were recorded. Intensity of therapy was recorded in terms of length of therapy, hours of therapy provided per week, and total hours of therapy provided. Pearson correlation was used to assess the relationship between changes in mean scores of outcome measures and intensity of therapy. Results— Studies that demonstrated a significant treatment effect provided 8.8 hours of therapy per week for 11.2 weeks versus the negative studies that only provided ≈2 hours per week for 22.9 weeks. On average, positive studies provided a total of 98.4 hours of therapy, whereas negative studies provided 43.6 hours of therapy. Total length of therapy time was found to be inversely correlated with hours of therapy provided per week ( P =0.003) and total hours of therapy provided ( P =0.001). Total length of therapy was significantly inversely correlated with mean change in Porch Index of Communicative Abilities (PICA) scores ( P =0.0001). The number of hours of therapy provided in a week was significantly correlated to greater improvement on the PICA ( P =0.001) and the Token Test ( P =0.027). Total number of hours of therapy was significantly correlated with greater improvement on the PICA ( P <0.001) and the Token Test ( P <0.001). Conclusions— Intense therapy over a short amount of time can improve outcomes of speech and language therapy for stroke patients with aphasia.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1161/01.str.0000062343.64383.d0

Cites

21 of 21 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bhogal, S. K., Teasell, R., & Speechley, M.
Affiliations
Western University (CA)
Venue
Stroke
Published
2003-04
Volume
34
Issue
4
Pages
987-993
ISSN
  • 0039-2499 (ISSN-L)
  • 1524-4628
OpenAlex
W1894429194
Cited by
719
References
21
Citations by year
2026: 21 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 28 · 2022: 23 · 2021: 43 · 2020: 47 · 2019: 26 · 2018: 34 · 2017: 38 · 2016: 54 · 2015: 36 · 2014: 40 · 2013: 34 · 2012: 43
FWCI
8.65
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Stroke (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Rehabilitation › Stroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Language Development and Disorders
Keywords
aphasia rehabilitation, treatment intensity, aphasia recovery, speech therapy, Token Test, treatment effects, treatment duration
MeSH terms
Aphasia, Humans, Time Factors, Treatment Outcome, Stroke

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review