Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29546269›Full record

ArticleAmerican journal of speech-language pathology2018

Do Participants Report Any Undesired Effects in Ultrasound Speech Therapy?

Jonathan L Preston, Gabriela Holliman-Lopez, Megan C Leece

3 registry-linked trialsAbstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in American journal of speech-language pathology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 3 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT03736213 phase1completednot on this mapstarted 2019, after this paper: background citation

Correcting Residual Errors With Spectral, Ultrasound, and Traditional Speech Therapy: Delineation of Sensorimotor Subtypes

TypeinterventionalSponsorNew York UniversityRan2019 to 2022Enrolled7ConditionsSpeech Sound DisorderArmsVisual-acoustic biofeedback, Ultrasound biofeedback
NCT03737318 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2019, after this paper: background citation

Correcting Residual Errors With Spectral, Ultrasound, and Traditional Speech Therapy: A Randomized Controlled Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorNew York UniversityRan2019 to 2024Enrolled108ConditionsSpeech Sound DisorderArmsBiofeedback-ultrasound, Biofeedback--visual-acoustic, Traditional articulation treatment
NCT06517225 phase2recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2024, after this paper: background citation

Visual-acoustic Intervention With Service Delivery In-person and Via Telepractice (VISIT) Non-Inferiority Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorNew York UniversityRan2024 to 2028Enrolled76ConditionsSpeech Sound DisorderArmsVisual-acoustic biofeedback
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Jonathan L PrestonDepartment of Communication Sciences & Disorders, Syracuse University, NY.
Gabriela Holliman-LopezSwarthmore College, PA.
Megan C LeeceDepartment of Communication Sciences & Disorders, Syracuse University, NY.

Funding

Improving clinical speech remediation with ultrasound technologyR01DC013668 · NIDCD · CUNY GRADUATE SCH AND UNIV CTR · PI BOYCE, SUZANNE ELIZABETH, WHALEN, DOUGLAS H · 2014 to 2018
$3.4M
Reduction in spread of excitation as predictor multi-channel spectral resolutionR01DC012152 · NIDCD · NEW YORK UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE · PI LANDSBERGER, DAVID M · 2012 to 2016
$2.1M
Treating Childhood Apraxia of Speech: Role of Biofeedback & Practice DistributionR15DC016426 · NIDCD · SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY · PI PRESTON, JONATHAN · 2017 to 2017
$446k
NIDCD NIH HHS R01 DC012152NIDCD NIH HHS R01 DC013668NIDCD NIH HHS R15 DC016426
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: Ultrasound visual feedback of the tongue is increasingly used as a component of speech therapy in clinical research and practice. The purpose is to offer a preliminary summary of the nature of participant-reported undesired effects related to ultrasound visual feedback. Method: Sixty-two participants across 3 sites (mean age = 11.9 years) and 38 parents responded to a 2-item verbal questionnaire following 14-16 hr of treatment regarding any aspects of the treatment they did not like. Responses were thematically categorized. Results: The 62 participants provided 65 distinct responses, which were categorized as follows: 31% no concerns, 40% gel-related (e.g., cold, sticky), 21% positioning of the probe (e.g., uncomfortable, annoying), 3% chin hurting (qualified as being minor in nature), and 5% other (i.e., unrelated to the use of the ultrasound). Responses from all parents suggested no concerns about the use of ultrasound; however, 8% expressed concerns unrelated to ultrasound use (e.g., fatigue). Conclusion: These data inform clinicians and researchers about participant's experience and highlight the type of comments most likely to be encountered with ultrasound in speech therapy. Although the reported adverse effects can be considered minor, they should be weighed against the potential benefits of visual feedback in treatment.

Indexed as

Feedback, SensorySpeech AcousticsUltrasonographyVoice QualityAdolescentChildHealth Care SurveysHumansParentsPatient SatisfactionPreliminary DataSpeech Sound DisorderSpeech TherapyTongueTreatment OutcomeUnited States

Identifiers

PMID29546269
PMCPMC6105118

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.