Utilising a systematic review-based approach to create a database of individual participant data for meta- and network meta-analyses: the RELEASE database of aphasia after stroke

Background: Collation of aphasia research data across settings, countries and study designs using big data principles will support analyses across different language modalities, levels of impairment, and therapy interventions in this heterogeneous population. Big data approaches in aphasia research may support vital analyses, which are unachievable within individual trial datasets. However, we lack insight into the requirements for a systematically created database, the feasibility and challenges and potential utility of the type of data collated. Aim: To report the development, preparation and establishment of an internationally agreed aphasia after stroke research database of individual participant data (IPD) to facilitate planned aphasia research analyses. Methods: Data were collated by systematically identifying existing, eligible studies in any language (≥10 IPD, data on time since stroke, and language performance) and included sourcing from relevant aphasia research networks. We invited electronic contributions and also extracted IPD from the public domain. Data were assessed for completeness, validity of value-ranges within variables, and described according to pre-defined categories of demographic data, therapy descriptions, and language domain measurements. We cleaned, clarified, imputed and standardised relevant data in collaboration with the original study investigators. We presented participant, language, stroke, and therapy data characteristics of the final database using summary statistics. Results: From 5256 screened records, 698 datasets were potentially eligible for inclusion; 174 datasets (5928 IPD) from 28 countries were included, 47/174 RCT datasets (1778 IPD) and 91/174 (2834 IPD) included a speech and language therapy (SLT) intervention. Participants’ median age was 63 years (interquartile range [53, 72]), 3407 (61.4%) were male and median recruitment time was 321 days (IQR 30, 1156) after stroke. IPD were available for aphasia severity or ability overall (n = 2699; 80 datasets), naming (n = 2886; 75 datasets), auditory comprehension (n = 2750; 71 datasets), functional communication (n = 1591; 29 datasets), reading (n = 770; 12 datasets) and writing (n = 724; 13 datasets). Information on SLT interventions were described by theoretical approach, therapy target, mode of delivery, setting and provider. Therapy regimen was described according to intensity (1882 IPD; 60 datasets), frequency (2057 IPD; 66 datasets), duration (1960 IPD; 64 datasets) and dosage (1978 IPD; 62 datasets). Discussion: Our international IPD archive demonstrates the application of big data principles in the context of aphasia research; our rigorous methodology for data acquisition and cleaning can serve as a template for the establishment of similar databases in other research areas

Complex speech-language therapy interventions for stroke-related aphasia: The RELEASE study incorporating a systematic review and individual participant data network meta-analysis

Background: People with language problems following stroke (aphasia) benefit from speech and language therapy. Optimising speech and language therapy for aphasia recovery is a research priority. Objectives: The objectives were to explore patterns and predictors of language and communication recovery, optimum speech and language therapy intervention provision, and whether or not effectiveness varies by participant subgroup or language domain. Design: This research comprised a systematic review, a meta-analysis and a network meta-analysis of individual participant data. Setting: Participant data were collected in research and clinical settings. Interventions: The intervention under investigation was speech and language therapy for aphasia after stroke. Main outcome measures: The main outcome measures were absolute changes in language scores from baseline on overall language ability, auditory comprehension, spoken language, reading comprehension, writing and functional communication. Data sources and participants: Electronic databases were systematically searched, including MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Linguistic and Language Behavior Abstracts and SpeechBITE (searched from inception to 2015). The results were screened for eligibility, and published and unpublished data sets (randomised controlled trials, non-randomised controlled trials, cohort studies, case series, registries) with at least 10 individual participant data reporting aphasia duration and severity were identified. Existing collaborators and primary researchers named in identified records were invited to contribute electronic data sets. Individual participant data in the public domain were extracted. Review methods: Data on demographics, speech and language therapy interventions, outcomes and quality criteria were independently extracted by two reviewers, or available as individual participant data data sets. Meta-analysis and network meta-analysis were used to generate hypotheses. Results: We retrieved 5928 individual participant data from 174 data sets across 28 countries, comprising 75 electronic (3940 individual participant data), 47 randomised controlled trial (1778 individual participant data) and 91 speech and language therapy intervention (2746 individual participant data) data sets. The median participant age was 63 years (interquartile range 53-72 years). We identified 53 unavailable, but potentially eligible, randomised controlled trials (46 of these appeared to include speech and language therapy). Relevant individual participant data were filtered into each analysis. Statistically significant predictors of recovery included age (functional communication, individual participant data: 532, n = 14 randomised controlled trials) and sex (overall language ability, individual participant data: 482, n = 11 randomised controlled trials; functional communication, individual participant data: 532, n = 14 randomised controlled trials). Older age and being a longer time since aphasia onset predicted poorer recovery. A negative relationship between baseline severity score and change from baseline (p < 0.0001) may reflect the reduced improvement possible from high baseline scores. The frequency, duration, intensity and dosage of speech and language therapy were variously associated with auditory comprehension, naming and functional communication recovery. There were insufficient data to examine spontaneous recovery. The greatest overall gains in language ability [14.95 points (95% confidence interval 8.7 to 21.2 points) on the Western Aphasia Battery-Aphasia Quotient] and functional communication [0.78 points (95% confidence interval 0.48 to 1.1 points) on the Aachen Aphasia Test-Spontaneous Communication] were associated with receiving speech and language therapy 4 to 5 days weekly; for auditory comprehension [5.86 points (95% confidence interval 1.6 to 10.0 points) on the Aachen Aphasia Test-Token Test], the greatest gains were associated with receiving speech and language therapy 3 to 4 days weekly. The greatest overall gains in language ability [15.9 points (95% confidence interval 8.0 to 23.6 points) on the Western Aphasia Battery-Aphasia Quotient] and functional communication [0.77 points (95% confidence interval 0.36 to 1.2 points) on the Aachen Aphasia Test-Spontaneous Communication] were associated with speech and language therapy participation from 2 to 4 (and more than 9) hours weekly, whereas the highest auditory comprehension gains [7.3 points (95% confidence interval 4.1 to 10.5 points) on the Aachen Aphasia Test-Token Test] were associated with speech and language therapy participation in excess of 9 hours weekly (with similar gains notes for 4 hours weekly). While clinically similar gains were made alongside different speech and language therapy intensities, the greatest overall gains in language ability [18.37 points (95% confidence interval 10.58 to 26.16 points) on the Western Aphasia Battery-Aphasia Quotient] and auditory comprehension [5.23 points (95% confidence interval 1.51 to 8.95 points) on the Aachen Aphasia Test-Token Test] were associated with 20-50 hours of speech and language therapy. Network meta-analyses on naming and the duration of speech and language therapy interventions across language outcomes were unstable. Relative variance was acceptable (< 30%). Subgroups may benefit from specific interventions. Limitations: Data sets were graded as being at a low risk of bias but were predominantly based on highly selected research participants, assessments and interventions, thereby limiting generalisability. Conclusions: Frequency, intensity and dosage were associated with language gains from baseline, but varied by domain and subgroup

Communicating simply, but not too simply: Reporting of participants and speech and language interventions for aphasia after stroke

Purpose: Speech and language pathology (SLP) for aphasia is a complex intervention delivered to a heterogeneous population within diverse settings. Simplistic descriptions of participants and interventions in research hinder replication, interpretation of results, guideline and research developments through secondary data analyses. This study aimed to describe the availability of participant and intervention descriptors in existing aphasia research datasets. Method: We systematically identified aphasia research datasets containing ≥10 participants with information on time since stroke and language ability. We extracted participant and SLP intervention descriptions and considered the availability of data compared to historical and current reporting standards. We developed an extension to the Template for Intervention Description and Replication checklist to support meaningful classification and synthesis of the SLP interventions to support secondary data analysis. Result: Of 11, 314 identified records we screened 1131 full texts and received 75 dataset contributions. We extracted data from 99 additional public domain datasets. Participant age (97.1%) and sex (90.8%) were commonly available. Prior stroke (25.8%), living context (12.1%) and socio-economic status (2.3%) were rarely available. Therapy impairment target, frequency and duration were most commonly available but predominately described at group level. Home practice (46.3%) and tailoring (functional relevance 46.3%) were inconsistently available. Conclusion : Gaps in the availability of participant and intervention details were significant, hampering clinical implementation of evidence into practice and development of our field of research. Improvements in the quality and consistency of participant and intervention data reported in aphasia research are required to maximise clinical implementation, replication in research and the generation of insights from secondary data analysis

Predictors of Poststroke Aphasia Recovery A Systematic Review-Informed Individual Participant Data Meta-Analysis

Background and Purpose: The factors associated with recovery of language domains after stroke remain uncertain. We described recovery of overall-language-ability, auditory comprehension, naming, and functional-communication across participants’ age, sex, and aphasia chronicity in a large, multilingual, international aphasia dataset. / Methods: Individual participant data meta-analysis of systematically sourced aphasia datasets described overall-language ability using the Western Aphasia Battery Aphasia-Quotient; auditory comprehension by Aachen Aphasia Test (AAT) Token Test; naming by Boston Naming Test and functional-communication by AAT Spontaneous-Speech Communication subscale. Multivariable analyses regressed absolute score-changes from baseline across language domains onto covariates identified a priori in randomized controlled trials and all study types. Change-from-baseline scores were presented as estimates of means and 95% CIs. Heterogeneity was described using relative variance. Risk of bias was considered at dataset and meta-analysis level. / Results: Assessments at baseline (median=43.6 weeks poststroke; interquartile range [4–165.1]) and first-follow-up (median=10 weeks from baseline; interquartile range [3–26]) were available for n=943 on overall-language ability, n=1056 on auditory comprehension, n=791 on naming and n=974 on functional-communication. Younger age (<55 years, +15.4 Western Aphasia Battery Aphasia-Quotient points [CI, 10.0–20.9], +6.1 correct on AAT Token Test [CI, 3.2–8.9]; +9.3 Boston Naming Test points [CI, 4.7–13.9]; +0.8 AAT Spontaneous-Speech Communication subscale points [CI, 0.5–1.0]) and enrollment <1 month post-onset (+19.1 Western Aphasia Battery Aphasia-Quotient points [CI, 13.9–24.4]; +5.3 correct on AAT Token Test [CI, 1.7–8.8]; +11.1 Boston Naming Test points [CI, 5.7–16.5]; and +1.1 AAT Spontaneous-Speech Communication subscale point [CI, 0.7–1.4]) conferred the greatest absolute change-from-baseline across each language domain. Improvements in language scores from baseline diminished with increasing age and aphasia chronicity. Data exhibited no significant statistical heterogeneity. Risk-of-bias was low to moderate-low. / Conclusions: Earlier intervention for poststroke aphasia was crucial to maximize language recovery across a range of language domains, although recovery continued to be observed to a lesser extent beyond 6 months poststroke

RELEASE: a protocol for a systematic review based, individual participant data, meta- and network meta-analysis, of complex speech-language therapy interventions for stroke-related aphasia

Background: Speech and language therapy (SLT) benefits people with aphasia following stroke. Group level summary statistics from randomised controlled trials hinder exploration of highly complex SLT interventions and a clinically relevant heterogeneous population. Creating a database of individual participant data (IPD) for people with aphasia aims to allow exploration of individual and therapy-related predictors of recovery and prognosis. Aim: To explore the contribution that individual participant characteristics (including stroke and aphasia profiles) and SLT intervention components make to language recovery following stroke. Methods and procedures: We will identify eligible IPD datasets (including randomised controlled trials, non-randomised comparison studies, observational studies and registries) and invite their contribution to the database. Where possible, we will use metaand network meta-analysis to explore language performance after stroke and predictors of recovery as it relates to participants who had no SLT, historical SLT or SLT in the primary research study. We will also examine the components of effective SLT interventions. Outcomes and results: Outcomes include changes in measures of functional communication, overall severity of language impairment, auditory comprehension, spoken language (including naming), reading and writing from baseline. Data captured on assessment tools will be collated and transformed to a standardised measure for each of the outcome domains. Conclusion: Our planned systematic-review-based IPD meta- and network meta-analysis is a large scale, international, multidisciplinary and methodologically complex endeavour. It will enable hypotheses to be generated and tested to optimise and inform development of interventions for people with aphasia after stroke. Systematic review registration: The protocol has been registered at the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO; registration number: CRD42018110947

RELEASE: a protocol for a systematic review based, individual participant data, meta- and network meta-analysis, of complex speech-language therapy interventions for stroke-related aphasia

Background: Speech and language therapy (SLT) benefits people with aphasia following stroke. Group level summary statistics from randomised controlled trials hinder exploration of highly complex SLT interventions and a clinically relevant heterogeneous population. Creating a database of individual participant data (IPD) for people with aphasia aims to allow exploration of individual and therapy-related predictors of recovery and prognosis. Aim: To explore the contribution that individual participant characteristics (including stroke and aphasia profiles) and SLT intervention components make to language recovery following stroke. Methods and procedures: We will identify eligible IPD datasets (including randomised controlled trials, non-randomised comparison studies, observational studies and registries) and invite their contribution to the database. Where possible, we will use meta- and network meta-analysis to explore language performance after stroke and predictors of recovery as it relates to participants who had no SLT, historical SLT or SLT in the primary research study. We will also examine the components of effective SLT interventions. Outcomes and results: Outcomes include changes in measures of functional communication, overall severity of language impairment, auditory comprehension, spoken language (including naming), reading and writing from baseline. Data captured on assessment tools will be collated and transformed to a standardised measure for each of the outcome domains. Conclusion: Our planned systematic-review-based IPD meta- and network meta-analysis is a large scale, international, multidisciplinary and methodologically complex endeavour. It will enable hypotheses to be generated and tested to optimise and inform development of interventions for people with aphasia after stroke. Systematic review registration: The protocol has been registered at the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO; registration number: CRD42018110947)