Optimizing intensity for aphasia treatment is a high priority research issue for people with aphasia, their families and clinicians, and could result in healthcare cost savings. An important aspect of intensity is the frequency of intervention, or how regularly treatment should be provided each week. While principles of neuroplasticity endorse massed practice, cognitive psychology has established superiority of distributed practice within normal learning. Neither concept has been conclusively tested in aphasia. There have been many literature reviews of intensity in aphasia intervention, but most have not investigated treatment intensity whilst also ensuring that therapy dose and treatment type are identical between study groups. Some have also combined studies across acute, subacute and chronic aphasia. We searched systematically for studies directly comparing higher and lower weekly treatment frequency in chronic aphasia. Eight studies were retrieved and rated for methodological quality. Meta-analysis was completed for group and single case experimental designs. Results showed that there are few studies investigating treatment frequency in chronic aphasia and their quality is low-moderate. Meta-analyses were inconclusive due to limited data, but there was no indication of either schedule being superior. Further research directly comparing treatment schedules is needed.

对于失语症患者，其家人和临床医生而言，优化失语症治疗的强度是一项高度优先的研究问题，并且可以节省医疗成本。强度的一个重要方面是干预的频率，或每周应如何定期提供治疗。尽管神经可塑性原理支持大众实践，但认知心理学已在正常学习中确立了分布式实践的优势。两种概念都尚未在失语症中得到最终测试。关于失语症干预强度的文献已有很多，但大多数都没有研究治疗强度，同时还确保研究组之间的治疗剂量和治疗类型相同。一些人还对急性，亚急性和慢性失语症进行了综合研究。我们系统地搜索了直接比较慢性失语症每周较高和较低治疗频率的研究。检索了八项研究，并对方法学质量进行了评级。对组和单例实验设计进行荟萃分析。结果表明，很少有研究研究慢性失语的治疗频率，其质量为中度。由于数据有限，荟萃分析尚无定论，但没有迹象表明这两种方案都比较出色。需要直接比较治疗方案的进一步研究。结果表明，很少有研究研究慢性失语的治疗频率，其质量为中度。由于数据有限，荟萃分析尚无定论，但没有迹象表明这两种方案都比较出色。需要直接比较治疗方案的进一步研究。结果表明，很少有研究研究慢性失语的治疗频率，其质量为中度。由于数据有限，荟萃分析尚无定论，但没有迹象表明这两种方案都比较出色。需要直接比较治疗方案的进一步研究。