A Systematic Review of Treatment Outcomes for Children With Childhood Apraxia of Speech
sixteen Sep Spoken language Intervention Effect for Childhood Apraxia of Oral communication: Quality Appraisal of Systematic Reviews
Posted at 09:56h in News, Enquiry
Alisha Springle, Amber Breeden, & Anastasia Raymer
Summary by Alisha Springle
A number of studies have examined the effects of speech interventions on outcomes in childhood apraxia of speech (CAS). Clinicians searching for the most effective style to treat their clients with CAS need an efficient way to identify the strongest evidence-based practices. One useful approach to support evidence-based practice is for the clinician to identify systematic reviews (SR) or meta-analyses (MA) aligned with exercise needs. Systematic reviews represent a rigorous process of identifying and synthesizing the results of the breadth of research studies on a topic, including an analysis of the methodologic quality of the research evidence (Grant & Booth, 2009). A meta-analysis is a systematic review that identifies consistent effect measures across studies to deport a quantitative synthesis of the enquiry testify. Most systematic reviews include all studies on a topic to encompass both the quantity and quality of evidence (Gough, 2007). Yet without acceptable rigor, SRs/MAs may be biased in their recommendations. We appraised the quality of existing SRs for CAS treatment using a tool developed within epidemiology, the AMSTAR-2 (A MeaSurement Tool to Appraise systematic Reviews; Shea et al., 2017).
A search of five databases to identify published SRs that coalesced treatment inquiry for CAS revealed vi systematic reviews that met inclusion criteria. 2 examiners coded each article with the AMSTAR-2 to rate the methodologic rigor of the SRs and extracted summary data. The number of studies summarized in half-dozen identified systematic reviews varied widely, from zero (Morgan & Vogel, 2009) to 42 studies (Murray et al., 2014). 1 rigorous systematic review included only one randomized controlled trial (Morgan et al., 2018). A 2nd moderately rigorous review (Murray et al., 2014) examined multiple unmarried participant research designs. These ii reviews summarized multiple types of treatments, including linguistic, motor-programming, and alternative and augmentative communication approaches (Koehlinger, 2015; Murray et al., 2014). The schedule for reviewed treatments varied by study, only most identified hour-long sessions delivered i to three times weekly. 5 of the six reviews reported improvement in speech production for at least some targeted speech behaviors post-obit treatments for CAS. Amend outcomes were reported for loftier intensity motor programming handling schedules that applied a high dose (number of responses) and higher dose frequency (days per week) during training (Kaipa & Peterson, 2016).
Although almost CAS treatment studies incorporate less rigorous study designs, recent well-done systematic reviews, such every bit the work of Murray et al. (2014), report that the preponderance of the show suggests that motor programming treatments lead to the best spoken communication production outcomes in CAS. Amongst these approaches are Rapid Syllable Transition Treatment (Residuum; McCabe et al., 2017), Dynamic Temporal and Tactile Cueing (DTTC, Strand et al., 2006), and Nuffield Dyspraxia Program (Murray, McCabe, & Ballard, 2015; Williams & Stephens, 2010). Descriptions of these treatment approaches can be found in various online resource (eastward.grand., apraxia-kids.org; asha.org; sydney.edu.au/health-sciences/residue/; ndp3.org/). Additional professional training can be beneficial to finer administrate these handling protocols and are bachelor through these and other websites (e.k., childapraxiatreatment.org; utdallas.edu/calliercenter/events/CAS/; sydney.edu.au/health-sciences/residue/training-package/). Some supporting treatment materials and preparation are provided by the researcher/developers complimentary of charge, while others require purchase.
Please see the full commodity for listed references.
ASHA Perspectives Sig 2, June, 2020
https://doi.org/x.1044/2020_PERSP-nineteen-00019
Alisha Springle, Amber Breeden, & Anastasia Raymer
Summary by Alisha Springle
A number of studies have examined the effects of speech interventions on outcomes in babyhood apraxia of spoken communication (CAS). Clinicians searching for the near effective way to treat their clients with CAS need an efficient way to place the strongest evidence-based practices. Ane useful approach to support evidence-based do is for the clinician to place systematic reviews (SR) or meta-analyses (MA) aligned with practice needs. Systematic reviews represent a rigorous process of identifying and synthesizing the results of the breadth of research studies on a topic, including an analysis of the methodologic quality of the research evidence (Grant & Booth, 2009). A meta-assay is a systematic review that identifies consequent upshot measures across studies to conduct a quantitative synthesis of the research show. Most systematic reviews include all studies on a topic to encompass both the quantity and quality of evidence (Gough, 2007). All the same without adequate rigor, SRs/MAs may exist biased in their recommendations. We appraised the quality of existing SRs for CAS handling using a tool adult within epidemiology, the AMSTAR-2 (A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews; Shea et al., 2017).
A search of five databases to identify published SRs that coalesced treatment research for CAS revealed six systematic reviews that met inclusion criteria. Two examiners coded each article with the AMSTAR-2 to rate the methodologic rigor of the SRs and extracted summary data. The number of studies summarized in six identified systematic reviews varied widely, from nix (Morgan & Vogel, 2009) to 42 studies (Murray et al., 2014). One rigorous systematic review included only 1 randomized controlled trial (Morgan et al., 2018). A 2nd moderately rigorous review (Murray et al., 2014) examined multiple single participant enquiry designs. These two reviews summarized multiple types of treatments, including linguistic, motor-programming, and alternative and augmentative communication approaches (Koehlinger, 2015; Murray et al., 2014). The schedule for reviewed treatments varied by study, but most identified hour-long sessions delivered i to three times weekly. Five of the 6 reviews reported improvement in speech product for at least some targeted speech behaviors post-obit treatments for CAS. Better outcomes were reported for high intensity motor programming treatment schedules that practical a loftier dose (number of responses) and higher dose frequency (days per week) during training (Kaipa & Peterson, 2016).
Although nearly CAS treatment studies contain less rigorous written report designs, recent well-done systematic reviews, such as the work of Murray et al. (2014), report that the preponderance of the bear witness suggests that motor programming treatments atomic number 82 to the best spoken communication production outcomes in CAS. Among these approaches are Rapid Syllable Transition Treatment (ReST; McCabe et al., 2017), Dynamic Temporal and Tactile Cueing (DTTC, Strand et al., 2006), and Nuffield Dyspraxia Program (Murray, McCabe, & Ballard, 2015; Williams & Stephens, 2010). Descriptions of these treatment approaches can exist establish in various online resources (e.g., apraxia-kids.org; asha.org; sydney.edu.au/health-sciences/residuum/; ndp3.org/). Additional professional preparation can be beneficial to effectively administer these treatment protocols and are available through these and other websites (e.g., childapraxiatreatment.org; utdallas.edu/calliercenter/events/CAS/; sydney.edu.au/wellness-sciences/rest/preparation-package/). Some supporting treatment materials and training are provided by the researcher/developers free of charge, while others require purchase.
Delight encounter the full commodity for listed references.
ASHA Perspectives Sig 2, June, 2020
https://doi.org/ten.1044/2020_PERSP-19-00019
Credentials:
Hours of Operation:
Treatment locations:
Address:
,
Telephone:
Email:
Overall Treatment Approach:
Pct of CAS cases:
Parent Involvement:
Community Interest:
Professional consultation/collaboration:
Min Age Treated:
Max Age Treated:
Insurance Accepted:
Source: https://www.apraxia-kids.org/speech-intervention-effect-for-childhood-apraxia-of-speech-quality-appraisal-of-systematic-reviews/
Post a Comment for "A Systematic Review of Treatment Outcomes for Children With Childhood Apraxia of Speech"