SynthesisJournal of communication disorders
A year in stuttering research: A systematic review of global representation and sociodemographic reporting practices in English-language journals in 2020.
Synthesis in Journal of communication disorders. 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.
- Influence of Marital and Parental Status on Public Reactions to Stuttering in Chile: A Socio-Demographic Study.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeDemographic data is inconsistently reported and defined in communication sciences and disorders research, yet gender, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status (SES) may be critical considerations for investigations of stuttering. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to evaluate the global scope and sociodemographic reporting practices among stuttering research published in the year 2020.
methodsArticle searches were conducted in February 2023 in PsycINFO, PubMed, and ASHAWire for studies sampling participants with developmental stuttering or cluttering. Further inclusion criteria for systematic review were that articles must: (a) be published in the year 2020, (b) be published in a peer-reviewed journal, and (c) present original empirical research. Participant gender, ethnicity, and SES were extracted via a manualized coding scheme.
resultsThe total corpus for review included k = 92 articles, representing a total n = 7,342 participants recruited from 26 different countries. The majority of articles (k = 36) were based in the United States (US), with all other countries contributing between 1 and 5 articles each. Gender (or sex) was reported in 93.5% of included studies, ethnicity in 22.8%, and SES in 41.3%. Reporting practices did not significantly differ between US and non-US countries. Of note, only one article in 2020 recruited participants who clutter, with all others recruiting participants who stutter.
conclusionThis is the first systematic review of diversity and reporting practices in the global stuttering research literature. Our results revealed a narrow global distribution of research participants, with limited reporting and analyses regarding participant ethnicity or SES. Consequently, we have identified opportunities to improve research participant transparency and to further consider sociocultural variables toward the advancement of global and inclusive stuttering research.
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.