Meinzer 2016.
| Methods | RCT | |
| Participants | Country: Germany 26 participants; 13 in the experimental group and 13 in the control group (18 men, 8 women); mean age (SD): 60 (14) years; time since stroke (SD): 46 (24) months; educational level: 12 (3) years; mean Aachen Aphasia Test naming performance at baseline (SD): 43% (21%) Inclusion criteria: right‐handed, native German speakers with chronic aphasia (> 12 months post stroke), impaired naming ability due to a single infarction or haemorrhage in the left hemisphere Exclusion criteria: contraindications to tDCS (e.g. cardiac pacemaker, history of seizures), a history of alcohol or drug abuse, other severe neurological, psychiatric or medical conditions, antidepressant or antipsychotic medication |
|
| Interventions | 2 arms: ‐ A‐tDCS over the left M1 (1 mA for 20 minutes) at the beginning of computer‐assisted naming treatment session with the 'vanishing cues' approach (2 times for 90 minutes a day, 4 days per week for 2 weeks) ‐ S‐tDCS over the left M1 (1 mA for 30 seconds) at the beginning of computer‐assisted naming treatment session with the 'vanishing cues' approach (2 times for 90 minutes a day, 4 days per week for 2 weeks) |
|
| Outcomes | Outcomes were recorded at baseline, at the end of intervention phase and at 6 months after the end of intervention phase: ‐ mean change in naming ability for trained items ‐ mean change in naming ability for untrained items ‐ confrontation naming of trained items ‐ quality of everyday communication, measured by CETI ‐ quality of everyday communication, measured by Partner Communication Questionnaire |
|
| Notes | ||
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Random sequence generation (selection bias) | Unclear risk | Not described by the study authors |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | Not described by the study authors |
| Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) Objective outcomes | Low risk | Objective outcome measures: participants were blinded, but personnel was not |
| Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) Objective outcomes | Low risk | Quote: "assessors were fully blinded to the stimulation conditions" |
| Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) Objective outcomes | Low risk | 2 participants in the experimental group and 2 in the control group dropped out between the end of study and 6‐month follow‐up |
| Selective reporting (reporting bias) | Low risk | All outcomes reported in the published protocol have been reported; ANELT has been substituted by CETI |
| Other bias | Low risk | No other bias identified |