Speech Intervention Effects for Childhood Apraxia of Speech: Quality Appraisal of Systematic Reviews

Abstract

Purpose A number of justification have examined the effects of speech interventions on outcomes in childhood apraxia of speech (CAS). The findings have been summarized in the form of systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses, which are used to support evidence-based clinical practice decisions. Yet without acceptable rigor, SRs/meta-analyses 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 Assess Systematic Reviews). Method 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. Results One rigorous systematic review included only one randomized controlled trial. A second moderately rigorous review examined multiple single participant research designs. The weight of high-quality evidence supported the positive effects of motor programming treatments for children with CAS. Conclusions Findings of six systematic reviews, two of which were conducted with relative rigor, suggest that motor programming treatments have the best evidence base for treatment decisions pertaining to CAS. Clinicians are referred to online resources to implement these treatments according to published protocols.