PT  - JOURNAL ARTICLE
AU  - Popescu, Tudor
AU  - Stahl, Benjamin
AU  - Wiernik, Brenton M.
AU  - Haiduk, Felix
AU  - Zemanek, Michaela
AU  - Helm, Hannah
AU  - Matzinger, Theresa
AU  - Beisteiner, Roland
AU  - Fitch, W. Tecumseh
TI  - Melodic Intonation Therapy for aphasia: A multi-level meta-analysis of randomised-controlled-trial and individual-participant data
AID  - 10.1101/2021.08.28.21262764
DP  - 2022 Jan 01
TA  - medRxiv
PG  - 2021.08.28.21262764
4099  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/01/01/2021.08.28.21262764.short
4100  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/01/01/2021.08.28.21262764.full
AB  - Background and objectives 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. Based on a-priori hypotheses, the present meta-analysis investigated the efficacy of MIT while considering quality of outcomes (psychometrically validated vs. unvalidated measures), experimental design (presence vs. absence of randomisation and control group), influence of spontaneous recovery (quantified as number of months post-stroke), MIT version applied (original vs. modified protocol), and level of generalisation (performance on trained vs. untrained items).Methods An extensive literature search in all major online databases and trials registers, including also solicitations for unpublished studies, identified 606 studies (years searched: 1973-2021). 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. 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 The final sample consisted of 22 studies, comprising data from 129 patients overall. Best-quality evidence from RCTs with validated measures estimated a small-to-moderate standardised MIT treatment effect of gppc = .35 [-0.08, 0.78] for non-communicative language expression, with substantial uncertainty. Unvalidated outcomes appeared to attenuate MIT’s effect size by 23% (non-RCT) to 43% (RCT) when compared to validated outcomes. Moreover, MIT’s apparent 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 the non-RCT estimate is confounded with spontaneous recovery, primarily within the first year post-stroke. In contrast, variation from 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.Discussion 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.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThis work was supported by a research-cluster grant from the Medical University of Vienna and University of Vienna (SO10300020).Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe 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.YesI 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).YesI 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.YesAll data relevant for this work is present either in the main manuscript, or in the supplementary files that accompany it. https://osf.io/gcjqr/