TABLE 2.
Data extracted from included papers: Characteristics of the study participants, age sex, CLEFT diagnosis, control/comparison group information, speech output measure used and additional information
| Reference (country) | Age of participants | Sex of participants | Cleft diagnosis(es) | Control group/comparison description | Speech output measure used | Additional information |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Anderson et al. (2016) (Australia) | 5;0–6;0 years (mean = 5;02 years, SD = 3.39) | Male = 19 (63.3%), female = 11 (36.7%) | Unrepaired SMCP = 3 (10%), soft palate cleft only = 3 (10%), cleft of hard and soft palate = 10 (33.3%), UCLP = 10 (33.3%), BCLP = 2 (6.7%), CLA = 1 (3.3%), cleft soft palate only with PRS = 1 (3.3%) | Standardized assessment with normative data | Diagnostic Evaluation of Articulation and Phonology (DEAP)—Phonology Assessment (Dodd et al. 2002) or Great Ormond Street Speech Assessment (GOS.SP.ASS) (Sell et al. 1999) or Cleft Audit Protocol for Speech—Augmented (CAPS‐A) (John et al. 2006). Speech output for the study categorized into ‘speech difficulties’ or ‘no speech difficulties’ based on the assessment used | Number with speech difficulties = 24 (80%), number with no speech difficulties = 6 (20%), adequate VP function = 20 (66.7%), inadequate VP function = 10 (33.3%), normal middle ear function in at least one ear = 5 (26.7%), bilateral type B tympanometry = 13 (43.3%), abnormal middle ear function = 12 (30%) |
| Baylis et al. (2008) (United States) | 3;10–8;06 years | Male = 6 (46%), female = 7 (54%) | VCFS group (8 including: +CP (1), submucous cleft palate (SMCP) (4), non‐cleft VPD (3)), CP/VPD group (5 including: non‐syndromic repaired CP (2), SMCP (1) or non‐cleft VPD (2)) | Children with VCFS compared with children with repaired cleft/submucous cleft palate or VPD | Phonetic inventory from 39 single‐word picture naming task targeting all English phonemes in initial, medial and final word positions (59 scored consonants and 13 scored vowels). PCC calculated. 15‐min conversational speech sample. PPC score calculated | VP surgery (5), hypernasal (11), years of speech therapy (range = 0–7), history of OM with effusion (9), hearing screening on day of assessment (all 20–25db), grommets (3), tympanometry within normal limits (8) |
| Collett et al. (2010) (United States) | Children with clefts mean = 81.8 months (SD = 9.0), controls mean = 82.1 months (SD = 7.5) Only 5–6‐year‐olds completed the ‘sound matching’ tasks of interest | Male = 56 (28 (66.7%) clefts, 28 (65.1%) controls), female = 29 (14 (33.3%) clefts, 15 (34.9%) controls) | CL only (8), CL+P palate (22), CP only (12). Distribution in the subgroup that completed the ‘sound matching’ task, unknown | Children born with cleft compared with non‐cleft, demographically matched controls and standardized assessment | None used | Mean months of school: cleft = 13.7 (SD = 6.6), control 12.8 (SD = 5.9), mean family SES: cleft = 47.6 (SD = 12.4), control = 50.5 (SD = 11.3), Caucasian: cleft = 29 (69.1), other (13 (31.0), control 35 (83.3) other 7 (16.7), OM: cleft 34 (81), control 28 (65.1) |
| Finnegan (1974) (United States) | Half of each group 7;00–7;11 years (mean = 7;05 years). Half of each group 8;00–8;11 years (mean = 8;07 years) | Male = 32 (16 CP; 16 non cleft) | CP (not specified if CP only or CP±L) | Boys born with CP compared with non‐cleft boys matched for age and meeting all other inclusion criteria | Iowa Pressure Articulation Test (IPAT) (Morris et al. 1961) plus 30‐s language sample. Used to rate nasality and VP function | Mean number of siblings for cleft group = 3.81 and for the non‐cleft group = 2.25. Number in cleft group with history of or current serious OM = 8 |
| Lemos and Feniman (2010) (Brazil) | 7–7;11 years | Male = 29 (12 non‐cleft, 17 cleft), female = 26 (13 non‐cleft, 13 cleft) | 6 post‐foramen and 24 incisive trans‐foramen clefts | Children born with CL/P compared with non‐cleft children meeting all the same inclusion criteria | None used | Non‐cleft group recruited from two schools located in the same town as the hospital the cleft group were recruited from |
| Whitehill et al. (2003) (Hong Kong, China) | Group with CP and posterior articulation placement, mean age = 6;09 (range = 4;06–12;09). Group with CP an no posterior articulation placement, mean age = 6;09 (range = 4;06–12;08). Non‐cleft group, mean age = 6;09 (range = 4;05–12;10) | Male = 22 (73%), female = 8 (27%) | Right unilateral CL/P (6), left unilateral CL/P (8), bilateral CL/P (6) | Comparison between children born with CP with posterior articulation, children born with CP without posterior articulation and non‐cleft controls | Part 1 of the Cantonese Segmental Phonology Test (CSPT) (So 1993), a 31‐item picture‐naming test with each Cantonese phoneme and tone presented at least once. A 36‐item picture‐naming test with each Cantonese syllable initial alveolar phoneme (t, th, s, ts, tsh, l) sampled six times in six different mono‐ and bisyllabic words varying in vowel and final consonant context | All native Cantonese speakers. Previous speech therapy (cleft groups = 20) = 15. History of recurrent OM = 16 |
Note: CL, cleft lip; CLA, cleft lip and alveolous; BCLP, bilateral Cleft lip and palate; CP, cleft palate; CL&P, cleft lip and palate; CL/P, cleft lip and/or palate; OM, otitis media; PRS, Pierre Robin sequence; SD, standard deviation; SMCP, submucosal cleft palate; UCLP, unilateral cleft lip and palate; VCFS, velocardiofacial syndrome; VP, velopharyngeal; VPD, velopharyngeal dysfunction; CP±L, cleft palate with or without cleft lip; PPC, per cent phonemes correct; and PCC, per cent consonant consonants correct.