Abstract
Melodic Intonation Therapy (MIT) is a prominent rehabilitation programme for individuals with post-stroke aphasia. The present meta-analysis investigated the efficacy of MIT while considering outcome measure quality, experimental design, influence of spontaneous recovery, MIT protocol, and level of generalisation.
An extensive literature search identified 606 studies in major databases and trials registers; of those, 22 studies, overall 129 participants, met all eligibility criteria. Multi-level mixed- and random-effects models served to separately meta-analyse RCT and non-RCT data.
RCT evidence on validated measures revealed a small-to-moderate standardised effect in non-communicative language expression for MIT, with substantial uncertainty. Unvalidated measures attenuated MIT’s effect size compared to validated tests. MIT’s effect size was 5.7 times larger for non-RCT data compared to RCT data. Effect size in non-RCT data decreased with number of months post-stroke, suggesting confound through spontaneous recovery. Variation from the original MIT protocol did not systematically alter benefit from treatment. Progress on validated tests arose mainly from gains in repetition tasks rather than other domains of verbal expression such as everyday communication ability.
The current results confirm the promising role of MIT in improving trained/untrained performance with unvalidated measures, alongside validated repetition tasks; whilst highlighting possible limitations in promoting 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.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
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
Footnotes
Manuscript (including figures and supplementary materials) revised in light of peer commentary. OSF repository added.
Data Availability
All data relevant for this work is present either in the main manuscript, or in the supplementary files that accompany it.
