ABSTRACT

Background

Recent reviews conclude that aphasia intervention is effective. However, replication and implementation require detailed reporting of intervention is and a specification of participant profiles. To date, reviews concentrate more on efficacy than on intervention reporting quality.

Aims

The aim of this project is to review the descriptions of aphasia interventions and participants appearing in recent systematic reviews of aphasia intervention effectiveness. The relationship between the quality of these descriptions and the robustness of research design is explored, and the replicability of aphasia interventions is evaluated.

Methods and Procedures

The scope of our search was an analysis of the aphasia intervention studies included in the and EBRSR 2018 systematic reviews, and in the RCSLT 2014 literature synthesis. Intervention descriptions published separately from the intervention study (i.e. published online, in clinical tools, or a separate trial protocols) were not included. The criteria for inclusion were that participants had aphasia, the intervention involved language and/or communication, and included the following research designs: Randomised Controlled Trial (RCT), comparison or control, crossover design, case series. Exclusion criteria included non-SLT interventions, studies involving fewer than four participants, conference abstracts, studies not available in English. Studies were evaluated for completeness of intervention description using the TIDieR Checklist. Additionally, we rated the quality of patient and intervention description, with particular reference to replicability.

Outcomes and Results

Ninety-three studies were included. Only 14 studies (15%) had >50 participants. Fifty-six studies (60%) did not select participants with a specific aphasia profile, and a further 10 studies only described participants as non-fluent. Across the studies, an average of eight (of 12) TIDieR checklist items were given but information on where, tailoring, modification and fidelity items was rarely available. Studies that evaluated general aphasia intervention approaches tended to use RCT designs, whereas more specific intervention studies were more likely to use case series designs.

Conclusions

: Group studies were generally under-powered and there was a paucity of research looking at specific aphasia interventions for specific aphasia profiles. There was a trade-off between the robustness of the design and the level of specificity of the intervention described. While the TIDieR framework is a useful guide to information which should be included in an intervention study, it is insufficiently sensitive for assessing replicability. We consider possible solutions to the challenges of making large-scale trials more useful for determining effective aphasia intervention.

中文翻译：

---

研究中失语症干预描述的总体回顾：AsPIRE 项目

摘要

背景

最近的评论得出结论，失语症干预是有效的。但是，复制和实施需要详细报告干预措施和参与者资料的规范。迄今为止，审查更多地关注疗效而不是干预报告的质量。

目标

该项目的目的是回顾失语症干预措施的描述和最近出现在失语症干预有效性系统评价中的参与者。探讨了这些描述的质量与研究设计的稳健性之间的关系，并评估了失语症干预措施的可复制性。

方法和程序

我们的搜索范围是对 EBRSR 2018 系统评价和 RCSLT 2014 文献综合中包含的失语症干预研究的分析。不包括与干预研究分开发表的干预描述（即在线发表、临床工具发表或单独的试验方案）。纳入标准是参与者有失语症，干预涉及语言和/或交流，并包括以下研究设计：随机对照试验（RCT）、比较或对照、交叉设计、病例系列。排除标准包括非 SLT 干预、参与者少于四人的研究、会议摘要、没有英文版本的研究。使用 TIDiR 检查表评估研究干预描述的完整性。此外，

结果和结果

纳入了 93 项研究。只有 14 项研究 (15%) 有超过 50 名参与者。56 项研究 (60%) 没有选择具有特定失语症特征的参与者，另外 10 项研究仅将参与者描述为不流利。在这些研究中，平均提供了 8 个（共 12 个）TIDiR 清单项目，但很少提供关于何处、剪裁、修改和保真度项目的信息。评估一般失语症干预方法的研究倾向于使用 RCT 设计，而更具体的干预研究更可能使用案例系列设计。

结论

：小组的研究普遍缺乏动力，缺乏针对特定失语症谱的特定失语症干预措施的研究。在设计的稳健性和所描述的干预的特异性水平之间存在权衡。虽然 TIDiR 框架是对应该包含在干预研究中的信息的有用指南，但它对评估可复制性不够敏感。我们考虑了可能的解决方案，以应对使大规模试验对确定有效的失语症干预更有用的挑战。