Aphasia Therapy: Factors of Efficacy

Study Results

Results pending

The study team has not published outcome measurements, participant flow, or safety data for this trial yet. Check back later for updates.

Basic Information

Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.

Recruitment Status

COMPLETED

Clinical Phase

NA

Total Enrollment

60 participants

Study Classification

INTERVENTIONAL

Study Start Date

2005-03-31

Study Completion Date

2013-03-31

Brief Summary

Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.

Constraint-induced aphasia therapy (CIAT) has proven effective in stroke patients. It has remained unclear, however, whether intensity of therapy or constraint is the relevant factor. This study will give an answer to this question to improve speech and language therapy.

Related Clinical Trials

Explore similar clinical trials based on study characteristics and research focus.

Study of Modified Constraint-Induced Aphasia Therapy Schedule to Treat Patients Following Sub-acute Stroke

NCT01625676

Aphasia

COMPLETED NA

An Investigation of Constraint Induced Language Therapy for Aphasia

NCT00223847

Aphasia Stroke

COMPLETED NA

Effectiveness of Intensive Aphasia Therapy Under Routine Clinical Conditions

NCT01540383

Aphasia Stroke

COMPLETED NA

Memantine and Intensive Speech-Language Therapy in Aphasia

NCT00640198

Aphasia Stroke

COMPLETED PHASE4

Clinic and Neurophysiology of Aphasia Treatment

NCT05572385

Aphasia, Acquired

NOT_YET_RECRUITING NA

Detailed Description

Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.

Although there is clear evidence that aphasia therapy is effective, questions remain as to the intensity of administered therapy, the preferred therapeutic approach and its initiation with regard to stroke onset. CIAT is a a high intense group therapy administered over 2 weeks. Additionally, patients have to communicate solely in spoken words or sentences (constraint). This study compares CIAT with an approach of the same intensity without constraints and a less intense house-typical therapeutic approach.

Conditions

See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.

Aphasia

Study Design

Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.

Allocation Method

RANDOMIZED

Intervention Model

PARALLEL

Primary Study Purpose

TREATMENT

Blinding Strategy

SINGLE

Outcome Assessors

Study Groups

Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.

Control group

Patients received a standard, house-typical aphasia therapy in single and group therapy sessions

Group Type ACTIVE_COMPARATOR

Control group

Intervention Type OTHER

This is the control group with 14 h treatment over 10 workdays.

CIAT-group

Patients received constraint-induced aphasia therapy.

Group Type EXPERIMENTAL

CIAT-group

Intervention Type OTHER

Examine the efficacy of CIAT (30 h over 10 workdays) versus Control-group and communication treatment group.

communication treatment group (CTG)

Patients received aphasia group therapy without constraints

Group Type ACTIVE_COMPARATOR

communication treatment group (CTG)

Intervention Type OTHER

Examine the efficacy of CTG (30h over 10 wokrdays) versus CIAT-group and control group

Interventions

Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.

Control group

This is the control group with 14 h treatment over 10 workdays.

Intervention Type OTHER

CIAT-group

Examine the efficacy of CIAT (30 h over 10 workdays) versus Control-group and communication treatment group.

Intervention Type OTHER

communication treatment group (CTG)

Examine the efficacy of CTG (30h over 10 wokrdays) versus CIAT-group and control group

Intervention Type OTHER

Eligibility Criteria

Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.

Inclusion Criteria

* first ever stroke
* suffering from aphasia

Exclusion Criteria

* severe cognitive or attentional impairments
* severe depression
* left-handedness
* severe dysarthria
* apraxia of speech
* severe deafness
* additional neurological diseases affecting speech (e.g. Parkinson's disease)

Minimum Eligible Age

39 Years

Maximum Eligible Age

89 Years

Eligible Sex

ALL

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No