Yuko Koshimori,Preetie Shetty Akkunje,Evelyn Tjiandri,Julia B Kowaleski,Michael H Thaut
{"title":"Music-based interventions for nonfluent aphasia: A systematic review of randomized control trials.","authors":"Yuko Koshimori,Preetie Shetty Akkunje,Evelyn Tjiandri,Julia B Kowaleski,Michael H Thaut","doi":"10.1111/nyas.15387","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Music-based interventions (MBIs) offer promising strategies for addressing speech-language impairments in individuals with nonfluent aphasia. This systematic review summarizes the current literature of MBIs for nonfluent aphasia recovery by types of MBIs to determine the efficacy of MBIs and assesses the risk of bias to identify common methodological limitations. A systematic search was conducted of MEDLINE, PubMed, and APA PsycInfo for the 20 years preceding July 2024. Risk of bias assessment was performed using the revised Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal tool for randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Ten RCTs met the inclusion criteria, featuring MBIs such as Melodic Intonation Therapy, Modified Melodic Intonation Therapy, and singing-based approaches. The results highlighted the potential of MBIs in various domains, particularly in enhancing repetition and naming abilities, even when compared to speech therapy. The reviewed studies exhibited a moderate to high risk of bias. Outcome measures varied widely, and functional communication, a critical rehabilitation goal, was examined in just two RCTs. Furthermore, heterogeneous control conditions and statistical methods hindered meaningful comparisons across studies. Future research should prioritize functional communication outcomes and refine intervention protocols to strengthen the evidence base. Addressing these gaps is essential for advancing the potential benefits of these clinical tools for nonfluent aphasia recovery.","PeriodicalId":8250,"journal":{"name":"Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences","volume":"46 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"103","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/nyas.15387","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"综合性期刊","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Music-based interventions (MBIs) offer promising strategies for addressing speech-language impairments in individuals with nonfluent aphasia. This systematic review summarizes the current literature of MBIs for nonfluent aphasia recovery by types of MBIs to determine the efficacy of MBIs and assesses the risk of bias to identify common methodological limitations. A systematic search was conducted of MEDLINE, PubMed, and APA PsycInfo for the 20 years preceding July 2024. Risk of bias assessment was performed using the revised Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal tool for randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Ten RCTs met the inclusion criteria, featuring MBIs such as Melodic Intonation Therapy, Modified Melodic Intonation Therapy, and singing-based approaches. The results highlighted the potential of MBIs in various domains, particularly in enhancing repetition and naming abilities, even when compared to speech therapy. The reviewed studies exhibited a moderate to high risk of bias. Outcome measures varied widely, and functional communication, a critical rehabilitation goal, was examined in just two RCTs. Furthermore, heterogeneous control conditions and statistical methods hindered meaningful comparisons across studies. Future research should prioritize functional communication outcomes and refine intervention protocols to strengthen the evidence base. Addressing these gaps is essential for advancing the potential benefits of these clinical tools for nonfluent aphasia recovery.
期刊介绍:
Published on behalf of the New York Academy of Sciences, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences provides multidisciplinary perspectives on research of current scientific interest with far-reaching implications for the wider scientific community and society at large. Each special issue assembles the best thinking of key contributors to a field of investigation at a time when emerging developments offer the promise of new insight. Individually themed, Annals special issues stimulate new ways to think about science by providing a neutral forum for discourse—within and across many institutions and fields.