Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2025 May 6;11(1):61.
doi: 10.1186/s40814-025-01640-6.

Quantitative results of SonoSpeech Cleft Pilot: a mixed-methods pilot randomised control trial of ultrasound visual biofeedback versus standard intervention for children with cleft palate ± cleft lip

Maria Cairney  1 , Lisa Crampin  2 , Linsay Campbell  2 , Joanne Cleland  3
Affiliations

Quantitative results of SonoSpeech Cleft Pilot: a mixed-methods pilot randomised control trial of ultrasound visual biofeedback versus standard intervention for children with cleft palate ± cleft lip

Maria Cairney et al. Pilot Feasibility Stud. .

Abstract

Background: Despite its growing popularity, there is limited evidence of the effectiveness of ultrasound visual biofeedback speech therapy for children with cleft palate ± cleft lip (CP ± L). This study reports on the findings of a pilot feasibility study of ultrasound visual biofeedback versus standard care. Results will be used to determine if a full-scale randomised controlled trial (RCT) is feasible.

Methods: We used a mixed-methods pilot RCT. Participants were children aged 5-16 with repaired CP ± L and at least one compensatory articulation. Participants were randomised, stratified for age, to receive six sessions of either articulation therapy (standard care) or ultrasound visual biofeedback (U-VBF) therapy. Outcome indicators for progression to full trial were measured as percentage targets achieved including the following: participants recruited and retained; outcome measure completion; and therapy protocol adherence. Due to the nature of treatment, the treating Speech and Language Therapists (SLTs) and families were not blinded; however, the assessing SLTs were blinded to treatment allocation until the end of the trial.

Results: Eight participants were randomised to articulation therapy and eleven to ultrasound. All participants' data was included for analysis. All but one of the pre-determined criteria for moving to full trial were fully met and the remaining indicator was partially met. At least 75% of the following were achieved: outcome measure completion; therapy protocol adherence; participant retention in each arm of the study. The target number of participants, 20 per treatment arm, was not reached.

Conclusion: Most feasibility measures were successful. This study suggests that a full RCT comparing articulation therapy to U-VBF therapy would be possible if the current recruitment strategy is addressed.

Trial registration: ISRCTN, ISRCTN17441953. Registered 22 March 2021.

Keywords: Articulation intervention; Cleft palate ± cleft lip; Speech therapy; Ultrasound visual biofeedback.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Declarations. Ethics approval and consent to participate: The study has been granted ethics approval by the West Midlands-South Birmingham Research Ethics Committee, reference number 21/WM/0104. Consent for publication: There is participant and carer consent to collect, analyse, and publish these data and results. Templates of the consent forms used can be found at the University of Strathclyde PURE Knowledge Base at: https://doi.org/ https://doi.org/10.15129/f65343c4 - 7781-44fe-9b00-516d4597efac. Competing interests: The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Violin plot and means of Cleft-Q and ICS results before, 1 week after and 1 month after therapy for each treatment group
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Exploratory plot showing the mean PCC per participant per session, including the baseline as -1, therapy sessions 1–6 and the two follow-up sessions as 7 and 8.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Bellis TH, Wohlgemuth B. The incidence of cleft lip and palate deformities in the south-east of Scotland (1971–1990). Br J Orthod. 1999;26(2):121–5. - PubMed
    1. Gregg TA, Leonard AG, Hayden C, Howard KE, Coyle CF. Birth prevalence of cleft lip and palate in Northern Ireland (1981 to 2000). The Cleft Palate Craniofacial Journal. 2008;45(2):141–7. - PubMed
    1. Medina J, Butterworth S, Fitzsimmons K, Russell C, Whaedally H, van der Meulen J: CRANE Database 2022 Annual Report. In.: Royal College of Surgeons, Clinical Effectiveness Unit; 2022.
    1. Trost JE. Articulatory additions to the classical description of the speech of persons with cleft palate. Cleft Palate J. 1981;18(3):193–203. - PubMed
    1. Lee A, Gibbon FE, Spivey K. Children’s attitudes toward peers with unintelligible speech associated with cleft lip and/or palate. The Cleft Palate Craniofacial Journal. 2017;54(3):262–8. - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources