. 2019 Sep 30;21(3):242–258. doi: 10.5853/jos.2019.01963

Table 2.

Summary of studies on digital therapeutics as speech and language rehabilitation in stroke patients with aphasia

Study	Study design	Sample	Intervention	Study description	Stroke stage	Frequency of intervention	Follow-up	Outcome measures	Results
Palmer et al. (2012) [33]	RCT	IG: 15	Computer-based program StepByStep	IG: StepbyStep training with usual care—reading, and writing activities with therapists	Chronic	20 min, 3 day/wk	5 mo intervention	OANB	IG showed more gains in naming ability after treatment than CG, with the difference of 19.8%.
Palmer et al. (2012) [33]	RCT	CG: 13	Computer-based program StepByStep	CG usual care only	Chronic	20 min, 3 day/wk	3 mo post-intervention	OANB
Doesborgh et al. (2010) [35]	RCT	IG: 8	Computer-based program Multicue	IG: Multicue	Chronic	30–45 min, 2/3 day/wk	2 mo intervention	BNT	Only IG improved in the BNT. Mean improvement did not differ between IG and CG.
Doesborgh et al. (2010) [35]	RCT	CG: 10	Computer-based program Multicue	CG: no treatment	Chronic	30–45 min, 2/3 day/wk	2 mo intervention	ANELT-A
Fink et al. (2002) [36]	Clinical controlled study	Group 1: 3	Computer-based program Moss Talk Words	Group 1: full clinician guidance	Chronic	12 sessions for 30–45 min each	4 wk intervention	PNT	Both groups showed gains on trained words in PNT.
		Group 2: 3		Group 2: partial independence				PRT
		Group 2: 3		Group 2: partial independence				PORT
Ramsberger et al. (2007) [37]	Clinical controlled study	Intensity	Computer-based program Moss Talk Words	Low intensity: 2/wk	Unspecified	Unspecified	4 wk intervention	Performance on Moss Talk Words	Patients showed gains in naming, regardless of intensity.
		Low: 2		High intensity: 5/wk
		High: 2		High intensity: 5/wk
Des Roches et al. (2015) [25]	Clinical controlled study	IG: 42	iPad-based program Constant Therapy	Both groups received 1 hr clinic session with a clinician.	Chronic	1 hr, 1 day/wk	10 wk intervention	WAB-R-CQ	Almost all patients showed gains on treatment tasks, IG showed more gains on standardized measures than CG.
		CG: 9		IG also received Constant Therapy at home.				CLQT
		CG: 9		IG also received Constant Therapy at home.				PAPT
Steele et al. (2014) [38]	Pre-poststudy	9	iPad-based program Lingraphica TalkPath	Participants received individual and group speech-language teletherapy services, and also used on-line language exercises to practice from home between therapy sessions.	Chronic	21 hr over 12 wk	12 wk intervention	WAB	Participants showed gains in CETI and NOMS on most items, RIC-CCRSA also showed gains in one item and in the overall score.
								CETI
								NOMS
								RIC-CCRSA
Kurland et al. (2014) [40]	Pre-poststudy	5	iPad-based program iBooks	Intensive 2-wk aphasia treatment program prior to beginning the individualised home practice programs	Chronic	2 hr/wk	6 mo intervention	BDAE	All patients maintained previous improvements and showed a further improvement in new trained words. BDAE and BNT scores were equal to or better than baseline.
Kurland et al. (2014) [40]	Pre-poststudy	5	iPad-based program iBooks		Chronic	2 hr/wk	6 mo intervention	BNT
Thompson et al. (2010) [41]	Clinical controlled study	IG: 6	VR training Sentactics	IG: Sentactics	Chronic	1 hr, 4 day/wk	8 wk intervention	NAVS	IG showed more improvements in NAVS than CG, no difference to the clinician delivered therapy.
Thompson et al. (2010) [41]	Clinical controlled study	CG: 6	VR training Sentactics	CG: no treatment	Chronic	1 hr, 4 day/wk	8 wk intervention	NAVS
Cherney et al. (2010) [43]	RCT	IG: 11	Computer-based program ORLA	IG: computer ORLA	Chronic	1 hr, 2–3 day/wk	8 wk intervention	WAB-AQ	Groups had equal gains in both WAB-R and WAB-AQ and showed no difference between the two groups.
Cherney et al. (2010) [43]	RCT	CG: 14	Computer-based program ORLA	CG: clinician delivered therapy	Chronic	1 hr, 2–3 day/wk	8 wk intervention	WAB-R
Cherney et al. (2012) [44]	RCT	IG: 19	VR training Webbased ORLA	IG: Web-based ORLA	Chronic	9 hr/wk	6 wk intervention	WAB-AQ	An improvement in language performance measured by WAB-R-AQ and WAB-R writing in IG; however, insignificant changes in WAB-R-AQ and WAB-R reading. Improvements were maintained in follow-up.
Cherney et al. (2012) [44]	RCT	CG: 13	VR training Webbased ORLA	CG: placebo-computer treatment	Chronic	9 hr/wk	6 wk post-intervention	WAB-R
Fridriksson et al. (2012) [46]	Pre-posttest	13	iPod-based program	Aphasia assessments evaluated before and after the training.	Chronic	30 min/wk	6 wk intervention	WAB-R	Patients were able to produce more than twice as many words during the speech entrainment–audio visual compared with the speech entrainment–audio only therapy.
Fridriksson et al. (2012) [46]	Pre-posttest	13	iPod-based program		Chronic	30 min/wk	6 wk intervention	BNT

RCT, randomized controlled trial; IG, intervention group; CG, control group; OANB, Object and Action Naming Battery; BNT, Boston Naming test; ANELT-A, Amsterdam Nijmegen Everyday Language Test scale A; PNT, Philadelphia Naming Test; PRT, Philadelphia Repetition Test; PORT, Philadelphia Oral Reading Test; WAB-R-CQ, Revised Western Aphasia Battery CQ; CLQT, Cognitive Linguistic Quick Test; PAPT, Pyramids and Palm Trees; CETI, Communicative Effectiveness Index; NOMS, National Outcome Measurement System; RIC-CCRSA, Rehabilitation Institute of Chicago–Communication Confidence Rating Scale for Aphasia; BDAE, Boston Diagnostic Aphasia Examination; VR, virtual reality; NAVS, North-western Assessment of Verbs and Sentences; ORLA, Oral Reading for Language in Aphasia; WAB-AQ, Western Aphasia Battery Aphasia Quotient.