ArticleAmerican journal of speech-language pathology2026
Inconsistencies in Clinical Reporting of Nasopharyngoscopy for Evaluating Velopharyngeal Closure: A Multisite Study.
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. 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
purposeNasopharyngoscopy is an imaging method used to visualize the velopharyngeal mechanism. To quantify the movement of the mechanism during speech, an international working group recommended standardized rating guidelines. While these guidelines are widely cited in research, the extent to which cleft teams apply them in a clinical setting is unclear.
methodThis cross-sectional study examined clinical nasopharyngoscopy reports from 11 cleft teams in North America. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the proportion of reports that included ratings for the extent of velar movement, left and right lateral pharyngeal wall movement, gap size, and a surgical recommendation. Fisher's exact and chi-square tests were used to assess differences in reporting by cleft team and whether the inclusion of quantitative ratings was associated with a surgical recommendation being included.
resultsA total of 188 nasopharyngoscopy reports were included. The extent of velar movement was reported in 68% (
conclusionsFindings suggest that what is documented clinically in nasopharyngoscopy reports varies both within and across teams. To achieve more consistent reporting within individual teams, providers may consider implementing standardized clinical templates. To achieve consistency across teams, these findings suggest a need for renewed efforts at developing consensus on the nasopharyngoscopy elements important to clinicians.
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.