ArticleBrain sciences2024
Childhood Apraxia of Speech: A Descriptive and Prescriptive Model of Assessment and Diagnosis.
Article in Brain sciences, 2024. 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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Childhood apraxia of speech (CAS) represents a significant diagnostic and therapeutic challenge within the field of clinical neuropsychology, characterized by its nuanced presentation and multifactorial nature. The aim of this study was to distil and synthesize the broad spectrum of research into a coherent model for the assessment and diagnosis of CAS. Through a mixed-method design, the quantitative phase analyzed 290 studies, unveiling 10 clusters: developmental apraxia, tabby talk, intellectual disabilities, underlying speech processes, breakpoint localization, speech characteristics, functional characteristics, clinical practice, and treatment outcome. The qualitative phase conducted a thematic analysis on the most cited and recent literature, identifying 10 categories: neurobiological markers, speech motor control, perceptual speech features, auditory processing, prosody and stress patterns, parent- and self-report measures, intervention response, motor learning and generalization, comorbidity analysis, and cultural and linguistic considerations. Integrating these findings, a descriptive and prescriptive model was developed, encapsulating the complexities of CAS and providing a structured approach for clinicians. This model advances the understanding of CAS and supports the development of targeted interventions. This study concludes with a call for evidence-based personalized treatment plans that account for the diverse neurobiological and cultural backgrounds of children with CAS. Its implications for practice include the integration of cutting-edge assessment tools that embrace the heterogeneity of CAS presentations, ensuring that interventions are as unique as the children they aim to support.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.