ArticleAmerican journal of speech-language pathology2026
Diagnosing Apraxia of Speech in Children and Adults When There Is No Gold Standard: A Scoping Review About the Diagnostic Process.
Article in American journal of speech-language pathology, 2026. 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.
- Assessment and Diagnostic Standards of Childhood Apraxia of Speech in Turkish-Speaking Children: A Scoping Review.International journal of language & communication disordersArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeChildhood apraxia of speech (CAS), stroke-induced apraxia of speech (AOS), and progressive apraxia of speech (PAOS) cannot be diagnosed with an error-free gold standard test or measure. Reference standards are sensible approximations but are vulnerable to bias. In this scoping review, we characterize the diagnostic process for reference standards that have been used in recent diagnostic literature and evaluate the extent to which bias-reducing strategies have been implemented.
methodWe extracted data about the diagnostic process for studies of speech characteristics in CAS, AOS, and PAOS that were published between 2014 and 2024. Observational studies published in peer-reviewed journals and in English were included, whereas treatment studies, surveys, case studies, and reviews were excluded.
resultsOf 198 included studies, the most common diagnostic method was consensus or confirmation by two to three diagnosticians (38.4%), followed by checklist verification (25.3%), and simple clinical impression (19.2%). Testing or measurement techniques were used less frequently for diagnostic purposes (9.6%). The diagnostic process varied by etiology, and strategies to reduce bias were minimally implemented across the board.
conclusionsThere is a need to accept that current diagnostic reference standards are inherently imperfect and to reduce risk of bias by using converging evidence, defining syndrome features operationally, standardizing consensus formation, and estimating reliability of classification. A focus shift to how speech profiles, tests, and measures relate directly to prognosis and treatment response may expedite scientific discovery, as may strategy-sharing among those who work with children, adult stroke survivors, and adults with progressive disease. SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL: https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.31173799.
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.