A year in stuttering research: A systematic review of global representation and sociodemographic reporting practices in English-language journals in 2020.
Ryan A Millager, Talia Liu, Dillon G Pruett and 1 others
PMID 39921930WHAT IT FOUND
In 2020 stuttering research, 65.01% of participants were US-based, and only 22.8% of studies reported participant ethnicity.
Gender was reported in 93.5% of studies. This is a review of reporting practices, not evidence about any treatment.
Key findings
0165.01% of the 7342 participants were recruited in the US across 36 of the included articles. The next largest countries were Australia (418 participants), Iran (267), and Türkiye (183).
02Participant ethnicity was reported in 22.8% of studies (k = 21), with data for only 1327 of 7342 participants. SES was reported in 41.3% of studies (k = 38).
03Gender was reported in 93.5% of studies (k = 86) and was considered in analyses or discussion in 56.5% of studies (k = 52). Ethnicity was considered in only 8.7% of studies (k = 8).
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
Only one year of publications (2020), so no trends over time can be seen English-language publications only, excluding research published in other languages No assessment of study design quality, risk of bias, or impact of the included studies Only one study in the corpus included participants who clutter, so findings about cluttering rest on a single data point Country of recruitment was sometimes inferred from author affiliations rather than explicitly stated in the article
Declared interests
Funded by NIH/NIDCD (R01DC020311), NIH/NCATS (UL1TR000445, TL1TR002244), NIH/NIDCD (T32DC013017), and the Wilker-Ellis Stuttering Research Fund at Vanderbilt University Medical Center. No industry funding or commercial conflicts declared.
The easy way to misread this
Do not read the US-heavy participant distribution as evidence that stuttering research findings do not apply to non-US populations. The study reviews what demographic information authors chose to report in 2020 publications. It does not assess the quality, design, or generalizability of the included studies.
Summarised by AI from the full paper, without a clinician reviewing it. Check it against the source before it changes what you do. Read it on PubMed →