{"title":"成人口吃患病率I:大规模人群中口吃的系统回顾和鉴定。","authors":"Max Gattie, Elena Lieven, Karolina Kluk","doi":"10.1016/j.jfludis.2024.106085","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Stuttering epidemiology is reviewed with a primary goal of appraising methods used to identify stuttering in large populations. Secondary goals were to establish a best estimate of adult stuttering prevalence; identify data that could subgroup stuttering based upon childhood versus adult onset and covert versus over behaviour; and conduct a preliminary assessment of the degree to which stuttering features as a co-occurring diagnosis.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Systematic review followed PRISMA guidelines. Quality assessment was based on the Joanna Briggs Institute Prevalence Critical Appraisal Tool, with criteria adjusted for appraisal of stuttering.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>15 sets of data were assessed for quality, with three meeting criteria for inclusion. These estimated adult stuttering prevalence at 0.67% at age 14-17 years (Taghipour et al., 2013); 0.21% at age 16-20 years (Tsur et al., 2021); and 0.63% when aged over 21 years (Craig et al., 2002).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Systematic review indicates adult stuttering prevalence is between 0.6-0.7%. A false positive paradox follows from the low prevalence of stuttering in the general population, creating a need for very high specificity when measuring stuttering in the general population. Failure to achieve high specificity (99.9% is suggested) leads to loss of statistical power due to presence of false positives. A corollary of the false positive paradox is that sensitivity in measurement of stuttering can be relatively low (90% is suggested) before general population estimates of stuttering prevalence are appreciably affected. Despite this relaxation of measurement requirements regarding sensitivity, covert stuttering is likely to have been underestimated. Covert stuttering might be accounted for using data from prospective cohort studies, however such a revision seems unlikely to exceed the widely-accepted 1% adult stuttering prevalence estimate; see Gattie, Lieven & Kluk (2024 this issue) for an estimate at 0.96 %. When used to estimate stuttering prevalence, data reported by Tsur et al. (2021) are outlying, with the relatively low estimate possibly due to origin as military conscript data and/or generalised healthcare screening.</p>","PeriodicalId":49166,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Fluency Disorders","volume":"83 ","pages":"106085"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Adult stuttering prevalence I: Systematic review and identification of stuttering in large populations.\",\"authors\":\"Max Gattie, Elena Lieven, Karolina Kluk\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jfludis.2024.106085\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Stuttering epidemiology is reviewed with a primary goal of appraising methods used to identify stuttering in large populations. Secondary goals were to establish a best estimate of adult stuttering prevalence; identify data that could subgroup stuttering based upon childhood versus adult onset and covert versus over behaviour; and conduct a preliminary assessment of the degree to which stuttering features as a co-occurring diagnosis.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Systematic review followed PRISMA guidelines. Quality assessment was based on the Joanna Briggs Institute Prevalence Critical Appraisal Tool, with criteria adjusted for appraisal of stuttering.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>15 sets of data were assessed for quality, with three meeting criteria for inclusion. These estimated adult stuttering prevalence at 0.67% at age 14-17 years (Taghipour et al., 2013); 0.21% at age 16-20 years (Tsur et al., 2021); and 0.63% when aged over 21 years (Craig et al., 2002).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Systematic review indicates adult stuttering prevalence is between 0.6-0.7%. A false positive paradox follows from the low prevalence of stuttering in the general population, creating a need for very high specificity when measuring stuttering in the general population. Failure to achieve high specificity (99.9% is suggested) leads to loss of statistical power due to presence of false positives. A corollary of the false positive paradox is that sensitivity in measurement of stuttering can be relatively low (90% is suggested) before general population estimates of stuttering prevalence are appreciably affected. Despite this relaxation of measurement requirements regarding sensitivity, covert stuttering is likely to have been underestimated. Covert stuttering might be accounted for using data from prospective cohort studies, however such a revision seems unlikely to exceed the widely-accepted 1% adult stuttering prevalence estimate; see Gattie, Lieven & Kluk (2024 this issue) for an estimate at 0.96 %. When used to estimate stuttering prevalence, data reported by Tsur et al. (2021) are outlying, with the relatively low estimate possibly due to origin as military conscript data and/or generalised healthcare screening.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49166,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Fluency Disorders\",\"volume\":\"83 \",\"pages\":\"106085\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Fluency Disorders\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfludis.2024.106085\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Fluency Disorders","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfludis.2024.106085","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
目的:回顾口吃流行病学,主要目的是评估用于识别大人群口吃的方法。次要目标是建立成人口吃患病率的最佳估计;确定数据,可以根据儿童和成人发病以及隐蔽和过度行为对口吃进行分组;并对口吃作为一种共同发生的诊断的程度进行初步评估。方法:按照PRISMA指南进行系统评价。质量评估基于乔安娜布里格斯研究所流行关键评估工具,并对口吃的评估标准进行了调整。结果:对15组资料进行了质量评估,其中3组符合纳入标准。这些研究估计14-17岁成人口吃患病率为0.67% (Taghipour等人,2013年);16-20岁为0.21% (Tsur et al., 2021);21岁以上为0.63% (Craig et al, 2002)。结论:系统评价提示成人口吃患病率在0.6-0.7%之间。一般人群中口吃的低患病率导致了假阳性悖论,因此在测量一般人群中的口吃时需要非常高的特异性。由于假阳性的存在,未能达到高特异性(建议为99.9%)导致统计效力的丧失。假阳性悖论的一个推论是,测量口吃的灵敏度可能相对较低(建议为90%),然后对口吃患病率的一般人群估计才会受到明显影响。尽管对灵敏度的测量要求有所放松,但隐蔽的口吃可能被低估了。隐性口吃可能使用前瞻性队列研究的数据来解释,但是这样的修订似乎不太可能超过广泛接受的1%成人口吃患病率估计;参见Gattie, Lieven & Kluk(2024年)对0.96%的估计。当用于估计口吃患病率时,Tsur等人(2021)报告的数据是孤立的,相对较低的估计值可能是由于征兵数据和/或广泛的医疗保健筛查。
Adult stuttering prevalence I: Systematic review and identification of stuttering in large populations.
Purpose: Stuttering epidemiology is reviewed with a primary goal of appraising methods used to identify stuttering in large populations. Secondary goals were to establish a best estimate of adult stuttering prevalence; identify data that could subgroup stuttering based upon childhood versus adult onset and covert versus over behaviour; and conduct a preliminary assessment of the degree to which stuttering features as a co-occurring diagnosis.
Methods: Systematic review followed PRISMA guidelines. Quality assessment was based on the Joanna Briggs Institute Prevalence Critical Appraisal Tool, with criteria adjusted for appraisal of stuttering.
Results: 15 sets of data were assessed for quality, with three meeting criteria for inclusion. These estimated adult stuttering prevalence at 0.67% at age 14-17 years (Taghipour et al., 2013); 0.21% at age 16-20 years (Tsur et al., 2021); and 0.63% when aged over 21 years (Craig et al., 2002).
Conclusion: Systematic review indicates adult stuttering prevalence is between 0.6-0.7%. A false positive paradox follows from the low prevalence of stuttering in the general population, creating a need for very high specificity when measuring stuttering in the general population. Failure to achieve high specificity (99.9% is suggested) leads to loss of statistical power due to presence of false positives. A corollary of the false positive paradox is that sensitivity in measurement of stuttering can be relatively low (90% is suggested) before general population estimates of stuttering prevalence are appreciably affected. Despite this relaxation of measurement requirements regarding sensitivity, covert stuttering is likely to have been underestimated. Covert stuttering might be accounted for using data from prospective cohort studies, however such a revision seems unlikely to exceed the widely-accepted 1% adult stuttering prevalence estimate; see Gattie, Lieven & Kluk (2024 this issue) for an estimate at 0.96 %. When used to estimate stuttering prevalence, data reported by Tsur et al. (2021) are outlying, with the relatively low estimate possibly due to origin as military conscript data and/or generalised healthcare screening.
期刊介绍:
Journal of Fluency Disorders provides comprehensive coverage of clinical, experimental, and theoretical aspects of stuttering, including the latest remediation techniques. As the official journal of the International Fluency Association, the journal features full-length research and clinical reports; methodological, theoretical and philosophical articles; reviews; short communications and much more – all readily accessible and tailored to the needs of the professional.