Abstract
IMPORTANCE Melodic Intonation Therapy (MIT) is a prominent rehabilitation programme for individuals with post-stroke aphasia. Despite substantial progress in recent years, the efficacy of MIT remains not fully understood.
OBJECTIVE Based on a-priori hypotheses, the present meta-analysis investigated the efficacy of MIT while considering quality of outcomes (psychometrically validated versus unvalidated measures), experimental design (presence versus absence of randomisation and control group), influence of spontaneous recovery (quantified as number of months post-stroke), MIT version applied (original versus modified protocol), and level of generalisation (performance on trained versus untrained items).
DATA SOURCES An extensive literature search in all major online databases, trials registers and the grey literature identified 606 studies (years searched: 1973–2021).
STUDY SELECTION Inclusion criteria: randomised controlled trial (RCT) data or case reports on adults with aphasia; pre-post assessment of language performance. Exclusion criteria: substantial variation from original MIT protocol; unvalidated outcomes, unless both trained and untrained items were compared; essential information not indicated/retrievable. Final sample: 22 studies.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS Following PRISMA guidelines, studies were double-coded. Multi-level mixed- and random-effects models were used to separately meta-analyse RCT and non-RCT data.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Measures of language performance focused on aphasia severity, everyday communication ability, domain-general function, language comprehension, non-communicative language expression, and speech-motor planning.
RESULTS Unvalidated outcomes appeared to attenuate MIT’s effect size by a factor of 0.29–0.43 across study designs when compared to validated outcomes. Moreover, MIT’s effect size was 5.7 times larger for non-RCT data compared to RCT data. Effect size also decreased with number of months post-stroke, suggesting confound through spontaneous recovery primarily within the first year post-stroke. In contrast, variation of the original MIT protocol did not systematically alter benefit from treatment. Crucially, analyses demonstrated significantly improved performance on trained and untrained items. The latter finding arose mainly from gains in repetition tasks, rather than other domains of verbal expression including everyday communication ability.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Accounting for various methodological aspects, the current results confirm the promising role of MIT in improving language performance on trained items and in repetition tasks, while highlighting possible limitations in promoting everyday communication ability.
QUESTION What determines the efficacy of Melodic Intonation Therapy (MIT), arguably the best-known treatment programme for individuals with neurological communication disorders?
FINDINGS MIT’s effect size was modulated by the psychometric quality of outcomes, use of randomisation and control groups, and the number of months post-stroke at the time of testing. Language performance improved significantly on trained items, less for everyday communication ability on untrained items.
MEANING Our findings emphasise the importance of appropriate outcomes and rigorous study design to obtain realistic effect size estimates. While MIT promotes performance on trained items, it appears to have limited impact on everyday communication ability.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This work was supported by a research-cluster grant from the Medical University of Vienna and University of Vienna (SO10300020).
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
As a purely theoretical work, no ethical approval was necessary or relevant for this project.
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
All data relevant for this work is present either in the main manuscript, or in the supplementary files that accompany it.
