Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Randomized controlled trial shows semantic and phonological treatments yield similar communication gains in poststroke aphasia, suggesting both therapeutic pathways are equally viable.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Semantic deficits, deficits in word meaning, have a large impact on aphasic patients' verbal communication. We investigated the effects of semantic treatment on verbal communication in a randomized controlled trial. METHODS: Fifty-eight patients with a combined semantic and phonological deficit were randomized to receive either semantic treatment or the control treatment focused on word sound (phonology). Fifty-five patients completed pretreatment and posttreatment assessment of verbal communication (Amsterdam Nijmegen Everyday Language Test [ANELT]). In an on-treatment analysis (n=46), treatment-specific effects on semantic and phonological measures were explored. RESULTS: Both groups improved on the ANELT, with no difference between groups in overall score (difference, -1.1; 95% confidence interval [CI], -5.3 to 3.1). After semantic treatment, patients improved on a semantic measure (mean improvement, 2.9; 95% CI, 1.2 to 4.6), whereas after phonological treatment, patients improved on phonological measures (mean improvement, 3.0; 95% CI, 1.4 to 4.7, and 3.0; 95% CI, 1.2 to 4.7). CONCLUSIONS: No differences in primary outcome were noted between the 2 treatments. Our findings challenge the current notion that semantic treatment is more effective than phonological treatment for patients with a combined semantic and phonological deficit. The selective gains on the semantic and phonological measures suggest that improved verbal communication was achieved in a different way for each treatment group.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Doesborgh et al. (2003) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: