↓ 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 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (73rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
38 X users
facebook
8 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
30 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
508 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.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 38 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 508 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 506 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 72 14%
Student > Bachelor 63 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 50 10%
Researcher 33 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 25 5%
Other 79 16%
Unknown 186 37%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 91 18%
Nursing and Health Professions 73 14%
Psychology 42 8%
Social Sciences 27 5%
Linguistics 15 3%
Other 60 12%
Unknown 200 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 28. 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 03 August 2022.
All research outputs
#1,467,989
of 26,311,549 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,950
of 13,206 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#17,807
of 278,487 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#70
of 266 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,311,549 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,206 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 33.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% 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 278,487 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 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 266 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.