ArticleBMC pediatrics2026
Comparisons of longitudinal speech outcomes in children born with cleft palate ± cleft lip with and without additional conditions at 5 and 10 years -a registry study.
Article in BMC pediatrics, 2026. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSpeech outcome differences in children with cleft palate ± cleft lip (CP ± L) with ( +) and without (-) additional conditions (i.e., diagnosed syndromes, additional malformations, and intellectual disabilities) are not fully explored. The Swedish cleft lip and palate (CLP) registry enables a longitudinal approach. Thus, the purpose was to compare longitudinal speech outcomes in children with different cleft types, with and without additional conditions, at ages 5 and 10 years, based on registry data.
methodsIncluded were all children with oral clefts involving the palate born in Sweden 2009–2012, with speech registrations at both 5 and 10 years in the Swedish CLP registry (n = 404): 16 cleft soft palate (SP) + , 37 SP-, 67 cleft soft and hard palate (SHP) + , 88 SHP-, 19 unilateral cleft lip palate (UCLP) + , 116 UCLP-, 15 bilateral cleft lip palate (BCLP) + and 46 BCLP-. The speech outcomes percentage of consonants correct, percentage of nonoral speech errors, velopharyngeal competence, and results of the Intelligibility in Context Scale were dichotomized. For group comparisons, Pearson’s chi-square test and Fisher’s exact test were performed.
resultsNo significant differences were found between the UCLP + /UCLP- and BCLP + /BCLP- groups. In the SP group, a significantly lower proportion of participants with additional conditions than without had age-appropriate consonant production at age 5 (SP + 33.3%; SP- 79.4%), sufficient velopharyngeal function at age 10 (SP + 73.3%; SP- 97.3%), and always intelligible speech at age 10 (SP + 33.3%; SP- 78.6%). In the SHP group, a significantly lower proportion of participants with additional conditions than without had age-appropriate consonant production at age 5 (SHP + 60.6%; SHP- 82.1%) and 10 (SHP + 73.8%; SHP-95.5%), sufficient velopharyngeal function at age 5 (SHP + 82.1%; SHP- 95.5%), and always intelligible speech at age 10 years (SHP + 51.7%; SHP- 83.8%).
conclusionsFor all cleft types with and without additional conditions and for all measured speech outcomes, speech improved between 5 and 10 years of age. Speech results were poorer for children with SP + and SHP + at both 5 and 10 years of age. The results highlight the need to consider heterogeneity within cleft subgroups when planning speech improving interventions.
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.