Resources

What the literature says about intensity, continuity and material in cognitive and speech & language rehabilitation. Protocols, sample sizes, results — and the sources to check.

Bibliography

Every publication cited on this site, gathered with its DOI.

  1. Breitenstein et al., The Lancet, 2017 · randomised controlled trial, 156 patients
    doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(17)30067-3
  2. RELEASE Collaborators, Stroke, 2022 · individual patient data meta-analysis, 959 patients
    doi.org/10.1161/STROKEAHA.121.035216
  3. Monnelly et al., International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 2023 · survey of UK speech and language therapists
    doi.org/10.1111/1460-6984.12918
  4. Simmons-Mackie et al., Aphasiology, 2017 · best-practice recommendations
    doi.org/10.1080/02687038.2016.1180662
  5. Woods et al., Cochrane review, 2023 · 37 trials, 2,766 participants
    doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD005562.pub3
  6. Laver et al., Cochrane review, 2020 · 22 trials, 1,937 participants
    doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD010255.pub3
  7. Castro et al., Aphasiology, 2022 · generalisation in phonological treatment of aphasia
    doi.org/10.1080/02687038.2020.1856327
  8. Calamia et al., The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 2012 · meta-analyses of the retest effect, around 1,600 effect sizes
    doi.org/10.1080/13854046.2012.680913
  9. Swiss Federal Office of Public Health and Alzheimer Schweiz, 2025; Swiss Heart Foundation (Federal Statistical Office data); Académie nationale de médecine, 2022.
  10. ASHA, Multilingual Service Providers Survey, 2023.
  11. Swiss Federal Statistical Office, population scenarios 2025-2055; Song et al., 2023; World Health Organization, guidelines on reducing the risk of cognitive decline, 2019.

These pages answer questions clinicians actually ask, drawing on clearly identified publications. Each one states the protocol, the sample size and the result of the studies it cites, then points to the source with its DOI. The aim is that readers can verify — not take our word for it.

We report what the literature says. We do not prescribe, we do not propose any protocol, and we do not replace clinical judgement. Where a finding is fragile, where a result comes from a neighbouring field rather than the one under discussion, or where a common claim is unproven, the page says so.

These pages report the literature. They do not constitute a therapeutic recommendation.