A mixed-methods pilot randomized control trial of ultrasound visual biofeedback versus standard intervention for children with cleft palate ± cleft lip: Parents' and children's perspectives.
Joanne Cleland, Robyn McCluskey, Marie Dokovova and 2 others
PMID 39651790WHAT IT FOUND
Families found ultrasound biofeedback and standard articulation therapy equally acceptable and enjoyable.
Ultrasound was liked for visualizing tongue movements, while standard therapy was liked for games. Travel was the main burden for both groups. This supports a larger trial but does not prove ultrasound works better.
Key findings
01More than 75% of families in both groups rated randomization and the interventions as acceptable, meeting the study's feasibility thresholds.
02Families in the ultrasound group particularly enjoyed seeing tongue movements on screen, while those in the standard group enjoyed the games used by the therapist.
03Travel burden was a key negative theme for both groups, with one parent describing a four-hour round trip.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for SLPs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
The sample size was small (19 children recruited, 15 families responded to questionnaires), so the results are not generalizable. The study was designed to assess feasibility and acceptability, not clinical effectiveness; it did not measure speech outcomes. Only children over 12 were invited to focus groups, meaning the views of younger children, who made up most of the sample, were not directly captured in the qualitative data. The study did not include the views of clinicians or families who declined to participate.
Declared interests
The authors report no conflicts of interest.
The easy way to misread this
Do not interpret the high acceptability and willingness to continue ultrasound therapy as evidence that it is more effective than standard articulation therapy. This was a pilot feasibility study that did not measure speech outcomes, and the quantitative results on effectiveness were reported separately.