6 AQ Total score Spontaneous speech Content delivery Fluency Comprehension Yes-no Auditory verbal comprehension Command performance Repetition Naming Naming things Control word association Sentence completion Sentence answer Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine Table 5: AQ scores before and after language treatment in the OLT and COT group. Before 26.7 (26.2, 19) 5.7 (5.4, 5) 3.4 (3, 3) 2.5 (2.8, 1.5) 3.6 (2.7, 3.1) 29.6 (18.9, 32) 21.9 (20.4, 18.5) 19.7 (21.4, 12) 2.4 (3.4, 0.6) 1.6 (2.6, 0.2) 11.4 (18.1, 0.5) 1.2 (2.5, 0) 2 (3.3, 0) 1.7 (3.3, 0) OLT group (SD, median) After Delta value 39# 12.3 (31.1, 31.6) (13.6, 7.2) 8.2# 2.5 (6.4, 6.8) (3.4, 1.5) 4.6# 1.2 (3.5, 4) (2.1, 1) 3.7# 1.2 (3.3, 2.3) (1.9, 1) 4.8# 1.3 (3, 4.4) (1.4, 0.9) 35.7# 7.9 (19.3, 37.5) (10.4, 9) 29.8# 8 (21.3, 26.5) (9.3, 4) 28.2# 8.7 (26, 21.5) (15.6, 1.5) 3.6# 1.3 (3.7, 2.6) (1.8, 0.5) 2.8# 1.2 (3.2, 1.2) (1.5, 0.8) 19.3# 8 (21.1, 9.5) (11, 4.5) 3.1# 1.9 (4.6, 0) (2.9, 0) 2.9# 0.9 (3.8, 1) (1.8, 0) 2# 1 (4.1, 0) (2.3, 0) COT group (SD, median) Before After Delta value 28.1 45.3# 17.2 (25.6, 19.2) (27.4, 41.3) (11.6, 16.9) 5.5 9# 3.5 (5.1, 3) (5.4, 8.5) (2.9, 3) 3.3 5.2# 1.9 (2.8, 2) (2.7, 5) (1.7, 2) 2.2 3.9# 1.8 (2.4, 1) (4.4, 6.2) (1.7, 1) 3.6 6.2# 2.7 (2.9, 3.2) (4.4, 6.2) (4.3, 1.9) 32.1 43# 11 (17.9, 33) (15.6, 48) (13.1, 6) 21.1 36.2# 15.1 (20.1, 11) (19.8, 36) (13.7, 12) 19.8 34.1# 14.2 (23.4, 10) (26, 32) (15.5, 8) 3.3 5.5# 2.1 (3.6, 1.2) (5.3, 5.2) (3.9, 1.3) 1.9 3.4# 1.5 (2.6, 0.5) (3, 2.1) (1.7, 1.2) 12.9 21.1# 8.2 (17.9, 4) (19.2, 14) (10.8, 6) 1.2 2.7# 1.5 (2.8, 0) (4.2, 0) (3.4, 0) 2.5 4# 1.5 (3.6, 0) (3.7, 4) (2.5, 0) 1.9 3.3# 1.5 (3.3, 0) (3.8, 2) (2.7, 0) P value∗ 0.021 0.049 0.024 0.097 0.009 0.574 0.019 0.031 0.100 0.274 0.626 0.427 0.391 0.215 COT group: group that received language therapy with oriental medicine therapy. OLT group: group that received language therapy only. ∗P value was obtained by the Mann-Whitney U test for comparing delta values between the OLT and the COT group. #P value means “<0.05.” It was obtained by the Wilcoxon-signed rank test for evaluating signiﬁcance of change in each group. Table 6: Comparison of the AQ Score improvements between the COT and OLT groups: distribution of severity. Group Before treatment (%) After treatment (%) Aphasia severity Severe Nonsevere Severe Non-severe COT group (n = 47) 31 (66) 16 (34) 18 (38.3) 29 (61.7) OLT group (n = 30) 23 (76.7) 7 (23.3) 17 (56.7) 13 (43.3) P value 0.445 0.159 COT group: group that received language therapy with oriental medicine therapy. OLT group: group that received language therapy only. P value was obtained by Fisher’s exact test for evaluating signiﬁcance of distribution of severe aphasia in each point (before treatment and after treatment). was no statistically signiﬁcant diﬀerence between the COT and the OLT group in distribution of severe aphasia (Table 6, Figure 2). Therefore, severe aphasia patients who belonged to the COT group revealed better improvements rather than patients who belonged to the OLT group. 4. Discussion The results of the present study suggest that the adminis- tration of language therapy in combination with oriental medicine therapy is eﬀective for the treatment of post-stroke aphasia. Among patients with severe aphasia at onset, those in the COT group exhibited better improvements than those in the OLT group, suggesting that the co-administration of oriental medicine therapy with language therapy revealed more eﬀective tendency in the treatment of patients with severe aphasia. The eﬃcacy of language therapy for aphasia has received much attention in recent years. Wertz et al. reported a 6% improvement in patients receiving language therapy compared to those that did not receive conventional language therapy [18]. In a recent meta-analysis, patients who received