SynthesisCoDAS2026
Opinions of speech-language-hearing pathologists and students on evidence-based practice: a systematic review.
Synthesis in CoDAS, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo synthesize evidence on the knowledge, skills, attitudes, behaviors, and barriers reported by speech-language-hearing pathologists and students regarding evidence-based practice (EBP). RESEARCH STRATEGY: This systematic review searches the PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, Embase, LILACS, SciELO, and LIVIVO databases and grey literature. SELECTION CRITERIA: The review included observational studies that investigated aspects related to EBP among speech-language-hearing professionals and undergraduates, with data collected through questionnaires. DATA ANALYSIS: Two reviewers extracted data independently, and information synthesis was supported by NotebookLM artificial intelligence, with subsequent manual verification. The risk of bias was assessed considering sample representativeness, response rate, data precision, evidence of sample size calculation, and quality of the instrument used.
results31 studies published between 2004 and 2024 were included, with samples ranging from 9 to 2,762 participants. The risk of bias ranged from 1 to 4 on a scale of 0 to 6. Studies show generally favorable attitudes towards EBP, but indicate important limitations in database search skills, critical reading, and application of evidence. Clinical practice is still heavily based on personal experience, with limited use of scientific literature. The main barriers reported were lack of time, limited access to evidence, scarcity of applicable evidence, and gaps in training.
conclusionDespite positive attitudes, the adoption of EBP in speech-language-hearing pathology is still limited, requiring educational and institutional strategies to strengthen its implementation.
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.