↓ Skip to main content

Speech therapy for children with dysarthria acquired before three years of age

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (82nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
77 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
94 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Speech therapy for children with dysarthria acquired before three years of age
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd006937.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lindsay Pennington, Naomi K Parker, Helen Kelly, Nick Miller

Abstract

Children with motor impairments often have the motor speech disorder dysarthria, a condition which effects the tone, strength and co-ordination of any or all of the muscles used for speech. Resulting speech difficulties can range from mild, with slightly slurred articulation and breathy voice, to profound, with an inability to produce any recognisable words. Children with dysarthria are often prescribed communication aids to supplement their natural forms of communication. However, there is variation in practice regarding the provision of therapy focusing on voice and speech production. Descriptive studies have suggested that therapy may improve speech, but its effectiveness has not been evaluated. To assess whether any speech and language therapy intervention aimed at improving the speech of children with dysarthria is more effective in increasing children's speech intelligibility or communicative participation than no intervention at all , and to compare the efficacy of individual types of speech language therapy in improving the speech intelligibility or communicative participation of children with dysarthria. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2015 , Issue 7 ), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL , LLBA, ERIC, PsychInfo, Web of Science, Scopus, UK National Research Register and Dissertation Abstracts up to July 2015, handsearched relevant journals published between 1980 and July 2015, and searched proceedings of relevant conferences between 1996 to 2015. We placed no restrictions on the language or setting of the studies. A previous version of this review considered studies published up to April 2009. In this update we searched for studies published from April 2009 to July 2015. We considered randomised controlled trials and studies using quasi-experimental designs in which children were allocated to groups using non-random methods. One author (LP) conducted searches of all databases, journals and conference reports. All searches included a reliability check in which a second review author independently checked a random sample comprising 15% of all identified reports. We planned that two review authors would independently assess the quality and extract data from eligible studies. No randomised controlled trials or group studies were identified. This review found no evidence from randomised trials of the effectiveness of speech and language therapy interventions to improve the speech of children with early acquired dysarthria. Rigorous, fully powered randomised controlled trials are needed to investigate if the positive changes in children's speech observed in phase I and phase II studies are generalisable to the population of children with early acquired dysarthria served by speech and language therapy services. Research should examine change in children's speech production and intelligibility. It must also investigate children's participation in social and educational activities, and their quality of life, as well as the cost and acceptability of interventions.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 77 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 94 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 1%
Unknown 93 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 19 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 18%
Unspecified 15 16%
Student > Bachelor 9 10%
Researcher 8 9%
Other 26 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 27 29%
Unspecified 22 23%
Nursing and Health Professions 15 16%
Psychology 10 11%
Social Sciences 4 4%
Other 16 17%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 48. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 June 2017.
All research outputs
#344,179
of 13,245,567 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#987
of 10,533 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#12,050
of 263,287 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#27
of 151 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,245,567 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,533 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 263,287 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 151 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.