ArticlePloS one2014
A scoping review of interventions to supplement spoken communication for children with limited speech or language skills.
Article in PloS one, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- Efficacy of a novel augmentative and alternative communication system in promoting requesting skills in young children with Autism Spectrum Disorder in India: A pilot study.Autism & developmental language impairmentsArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAugmentative and Alternative Communication (AAC) is used for treating children with severe disorders of speech-language production and/or comprehension. Various strategies are used, but research and debate on their efficacy have remained limited to a specific area and have rarely reached the general medical community.
objectiveTo systematically evaluate outcomes of AAC interventions in children with limited speech or language skills.
methodsSearches were conducted (up to December 2012) in the MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, DARE, and Cochrane Library databases. Furthermore, relevant journals were searched by hand. References from identified studies were examined. Only RCTs were considered. Trial quality was assessed according to a standardized and validated set of criteria.
resultsFourteen of 1661 retrieved papers met inclusion criteria. A total of 666 children were included in the review and 7 papers involved only children <5 years old. Papers were of average quality and all but one had been published during the previous 10 years by one of 8 research groups, 5 of which from the United States. Seven studies directly addressed AAC use by children with different disabilities. Seven studies enrolled typically developing children: 5 evaluated the use of AAC technologies by children without disabilities in order to obtain results that could be used to improve interventions in peers with disabilities, and 2 evaluated peers' attitudes towards children who used AAC. Both interventions and outcome measures varied widely between studies. Overall findings demonstrate the effectiveness of the AAC interventions considered, but the focus on RCTs alone appears too restrictive.
conclusionsSolid evidence of the positive effects of AAC interventions in children with severe communication disorders must be generated, and different methods are needed besides RCTs. Moreover, it is important that knowledge, research, and debate extend to the medical community in order to ensure clinically effective AAC provision for these children (and their parents).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.