PICTURE-IT: a pilot randomized cross-over trial encouraging right-hemisphere engagement for the treatment of aphasia via telemedicine.
Melissa D Stockbridge, Lindsey N Kelly, Michael Colavito and 4 others
PMID 41551290WHAT IT FOUND
No participant had a significant difference between PICTURE-IT and CoDeLT on the primary naming outcome.
Both telemedicine therapies were feasible, but this pilot does not prove either works or that one is better.
Key findings
01No participant had a significant difference between PICTURE-IT and CoDeLT in change on the Boston Naming Test, the primary outcome.
02Numerically, 3 of 6 subacute participants and 3 of 8 chronic participants showed greater change in the primary naming measure after PICTURE-IT, while 1 of 6 subacute and 4 of 8 chronic showed greater change after CoDeLT, and these differences were not significant.
03Ten participants responded to subjective ratings; the median and mode for all four questions were 7 out of 7, and ratings for the two therapies were nearly identical, although CoDeLT ratings had a larger range.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for SLPs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
This was a pilot with 17 recruited and 3 discontinued, leaving six subacute and eight chronic participants analyzed, so it cannot establish which therapy works better. The primary Boston Naming Test outcome showed no significant difference for any participant, and the individual and subgroup differences were numerical and not significant. The therapy dose was short compared with the paper's note that larger trials may need 20 to 50 or even 120 hours. The study did not have verified clinical data on lesion size or location, or on right hemisphere health, for remote participants. There is no evidence that PICTURE-IT engaged the right hemisphere more than CoDeLT. Each treatment had multiple components, and the contribution of any single component cannot be separated. Subjective ratings came from 10 participants and were not formally analyzed. The crossover design had a short wash-out period because of the small sample and short treatment duration.
Declared interests
The authors reported no potential conflict of interest. The paper notes that the sites were within the Center for the Study of Aphasia Recovery (National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders P50 DC014664).
The easy way to misread this
Do not conclude that PICTURE-IT is better than CoDeLT or that either therapy was proven effective. No participant had a significant difference on the primary naming outcome, and the numerical differences in individual and subgroup responses were not significant.
Summarised by AI from the full paper, without a clinician reviewing it. Check it against the source before it changes what you do. Read it on PubMed →