ArticlePilot and feasibility studies2025
Quantitative results of SonoSpeech Cleft Pilot: a mixed-methods pilot randomised control trial of ultrasound visual biofeedback versus standard intervention for children with cleft palate ± cleft lip.
Article in Pilot and feasibility studies, 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDespite its growing popularity, there is limited evidence of the effectiveness of ultrasound visual biofeedback speech therapy for children with cleft palate ± cleft lip (CP ± L). This study reports on the findings of a pilot feasibility study of ultrasound visual biofeedback versus standard care. Results will be used to determine if a full-scale randomised controlled trial (RCT) is feasible.
methodsWe used a mixed-methods pilot RCT. Participants were children aged 5-16 with repaired CP ± L and at least one compensatory articulation. Participants were randomised, stratified for age, to receive six sessions of either articulation therapy (standard care) or ultrasound visual biofeedback (U-VBF) therapy. Outcome indicators for progression to full trial were measured as percentage targets achieved including the following: participants recruited and retained; outcome measure completion; and therapy protocol adherence. Due to the nature of treatment, the treating Speech and Language Therapists (SLTs) and families were not blinded; however, the assessing SLTs were blinded to treatment allocation until the end of the trial.
resultsEight participants were randomised to articulation therapy and eleven to ultrasound. All participants' data was included for analysis. All but one of the pre-determined criteria for moving to full trial were fully met and the remaining indicator was partially met. At least 75% of the following were achieved: outcome measure completion; therapy protocol adherence; participant retention in each arm of the study. The target number of participants, 20 per treatment arm, was not reached.
conclusionMost feasibility measures were successful. This study suggests that a full RCT comparing articulation therapy to U-VBF therapy would be possible if the current recruitment strategy is addressed.
trial registrationISRCTN, ISRCTN17441953. Registered 22 March 2021.
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.