ArticleScientific reports2025
An evaluation of speech therapy care in the surrounding area of an interdisciplinary cleft lip and palate tertiary care center.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The anatomical deformation in cleft patients requires speech therapy to support cleft patients as best as possible. The aim of this study was to evaluate the standard of knowledge of therapists concerning clefts. Furthermore, the study aimed to determine whether there was a difference between therapists with and without treatment experience in cleft patients as well as among therapists with more or less years of general professional experience. We developed a questionnaire about different areas of speech therapy: "General," "Speech therapy," "Development opportunities and influences," and "Interdisciplinary collaboration." For a total of 50 questions, we used single-, multiple-choice questions and the visual analog scale (VAS). Speech therapists with experience in treating cleft patients (n = 43) felt more confident regarding their knowledge and abilities than therapists without experience (n = 61), especially concerning nonspecialist disciplines and cleft specifications. No difference was found in therapy duration, indications, influences, and potential for development. Professional experience (years) and cleft experience correlate; with more knowledge in the group with more than 8 years of experience. Cleft centers remain first choice for patients' care thanks to the higher number of patients, daily treatment routine, the direct contact among examiners, and a common treatment concept.
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.