摘要
Objectives:This study aimed to systematically evaluate the effects of constraint-induced aphasia therapy(OAT)for aphasic patients reported by randomized controlled trials.Methods:Relevant randomized controlled trials were retrieved from 11 electronic databases.A methodological quality assessment was conducted in accordance with the Cochrane Handbook,and metaanalyses were performed by using RevMan 5.2.A descriptive analysis was conducted when the included trials were not suitable for a meta-analysis.Results:A total of 12 trials were included.A statistically significant group difference was shown from the meta-analysis in the results measured by the Western Aphasia Battery(random-effects model,MD=1.23,95%CI=0.31 to 2.14,P<0.01).However,there were no statistically significant differences shown in the results of the Boston Naming Test(fixed-effects model,MD=-1.79,95%CI=-11.19 to Z62,P>0.05)and Aachen Aphasia Test(fixed-effects model,MD=-1.11,95%CI=-4.49 to 2.27,P>0.05).The descriptive analysis showed positive results in language performances of naming,repetition,and comprehension.Conclusion:This systematic review indicated that CIAT was efficient for improving language performance with regard to naming,comprehension,repetition,written language,and oral language based on the current evidence.And this review provides some meaningful guides for clinical practice:expand the therapy duration to 2 or 3 h per day,focus on naming,and choose the best assessment tool.It also indicates a need for more rigorous,large-scale,and high-quality trials in the future.
目的系统评价随机对照试验中强制性诱导言语治疗对失语症患者的治疗效果。方法在11个电子数据库中检索与之相关的随机对照试验,根据Cochrane手册进行文献质量评价,运用RevMan5.2进行Meta分析,若纳入的文献不适合做Meta分析时则采取描述性分析。结果共12篇文献被纳入。Meta分析结果显示,西方失语症成套测试结果的组间差异有统计学意义(MD=1.23,95%CI=0.31~2.14,P<0.01),但是波士顿命名量表(MD=-1.79,95%Cl=-11.19-7.62,P>0.05)以及亚琛失语测试量表(MD-=-1.11,95%CI=-4.49-2.27,P>0.05)测试结果的组间差异没有统计学意义。描述性分析显示在命名.复述和理解力上,采取强制性诱导言语治疗的干预组患者提高较为明显。结论强制性诱导言语治疗可以有效提高失语症患者的语言能力,尤其是命名、复述、理解、阅读和口语表达能力。在临床实践时,言语训练的时间要增加至2~3 h/d,并且要选择合适的失语症测量量表进行评估。研究人员也要开展更加科学化、大样本高质量的随机对照研究。
基金
This study received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public,commercial,or not-for-profit sectors
