Speech pathology management of non-progressive dysarthria: a systematic review of the literature

Purpose: The purpose of this study is to conduct a systematic review of interventions for the treatment of non-progressive dysarthria in adults.

Materials and methods: Five electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, PSYCINFO, Cochrane Collaboration) were searched for all studies that described and evaluated treatment used for non-progressive dysarthria in adults. Studies were included if (1) participants were adults (18+ years) with a confirmed diagnosis of non-progressive dysarthria, (2) participants received intervention with pre-post outcome data, and (3) the article was published between 2006 and 2017 (including early online publications). Data extracted included the number of participants; etiology; dysarthria type and severity; age; gender; presence of a control group; intervention tasks, frequency and duration; outcome measures; and conclusions. Data extraction was completed by a member of the research team independently and crosschecked by another team member.

Results: Of the 6728 articles identified, 21 met the inclusion criteria. The predominant study design was a case study or case series. The methodological quality of the studies varied. Typically, the interventions included impairment-based and activity level tasks targeting conversation. Approximately half of the interventions adhered to a treatment manual.

Conclusions: The evidence base to guide treatment for non-progressive dysarthria is increasing, with interventions showing promise in results, participant numbers, and positive participant feedback.Implications for rehabilitation

The evidence base to guide treatment for non-progressive dysarthria is increasing, but remains limited.

The majority of evidence is of moderate methodological quality.

The emergence of new research indicates that health professionals need to be continuously aware and critically appraise new literature in the area.

The evidence base to guide treatment for non-progressive dysarthria is increasing, but remains limited.

The majority of evidence is of moderate methodological quality.

The emergence of new research indicates that health professionals need to be continuously aware and critically appraise new literature in the area.