↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Non-speech oral motor treatment for children with developmental speech sound disorders

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
41 tweeters
facebook
7 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
330 Mendeley
Title
Non-speech oral motor treatment for children with developmental speech sound disorders
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd009383.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alice S-Y Lee, Fiona E Gibbon

Abstract

Children with developmental speech sound disorders have difficulties in producing the speech sounds of their native language. These speech difficulties could be due to structural, sensory or neurophysiological causes (e.g. hearing impairment), but more often the cause of the problem is unknown. One treatment approach used by speech-language therapists/pathologists is non-speech oral motor treatment (NSOMT). NSOMTs are non-speech activities that aim to stimulate or improve speech production and treat specific speech errors. For example, using exercises such as smiling, pursing, blowing into horns, blowing bubbles, and lip massage to target lip mobility for the production of speech sounds involving the lips, such as /p/, /b/, and /m/. The efficacy of this treatment approach is controversial, and evidence regarding the efficacy of NSOMTs needs to be examined.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 41 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 330 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 327 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 60 18%
Student > Bachelor 42 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 39 12%
Researcher 25 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 23 7%
Other 65 20%
Unknown 76 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 67 20%
Nursing and Health Professions 51 15%
Psychology 35 11%
Social Sciences 25 8%
Sports and Recreations 12 4%
Other 49 15%
Unknown 91 28%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 31. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 10 September 2019.
All research outputs
#772,233
of 17,047,319 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,017
of 11,618 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#13,332
of 229,578 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#60
of 245 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,047,319 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,618 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 24.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 229,578 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 245 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.