CoDAS · 2026
Risk factors and assessment methods for screening childhood-onset fluency disorders: a scoping review.
СтатьяScoping ReviewНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Lima Mayra Maria Oliveira de, Anjos Heloísa de Oliveira Dos, Dias Thaíse Sara Costa, Correia Débora Vasconcelos, Oliveira Cristiane Moço Canhetti de
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To map the state of the art regarding risk factors and assessment methods employed in the screening of fluency disorders in preschool children.
RESEARCH STRATEGIES: A scoping review was conducted in accordance with the Joanna Briggs Institute guidelines and the PRISMA-ScR checklist. The guiding question was: What are the risk factors and assessment methods used in the screening of fluency disorders (stuttering and cluttering) in preschoolers, as reported in the international literature? The PCC strategy guided the search, using MeSH descriptors and free terms across the Lilacs, PubMed/Medline, Scopus, and ScienceDirect databases, from 2020 to 2025, with no language restrictions.
SELECTION CRITERIA: Original full-text articles addressing at least one research question were included. Exclusion criteria comprised non-scientific or secondary publications, studies without abstracts, those outside the conceptual or population scope, and those involving co-occurring disorders.
DATA ANALYSIS: Data were analyzed descriptively and synthesized narratively.
RESULTS: A total of 2,091 publications were identified; after duplicate removal and eligibility screening, 11 articles were included. No studies on risk factors for cluttering were found. For stuttering, 14 predictive risk factors were mapped, related to body functions and structures as well as contextual factors. Only two standardized screening tools were identified, both developed in Brazil: the Developmental Stuttering Risk Protocol and the Developmental Stuttering Screening Instrument.
CONCLUSION: Evidence on risk factors for cluttering in preschoolers is lacking. For stuttering, biological and contextual factors emerged as key predictors. Most available assessment methods are restricted to use by speech-language pathologists, highlighting gaps and opportunities for future research.
RESEARCH STRATEGIES: A scoping review was conducted in accordance with the Joanna Briggs Institute guidelines and the PRISMA-ScR checklist. The guiding question was: What are the risk factors and assessment methods used in the screening of fluency disorders (stuttering and cluttering) in preschoolers, as reported in the international literature? The PCC strategy guided the search, using MeSH descriptors and free terms across the Lilacs, PubMed/Medline, Scopus, and ScienceDirect databases, from 2020 to 2025, with no language restrictions.
SELECTION CRITERIA: Original full-text articles addressing at least one research question were included. Exclusion criteria comprised non-scientific or secondary publications, studies without abstracts, those outside the conceptual or population scope, and those involving co-occurring disorders.
DATA ANALYSIS: Data were analyzed descriptively and synthesized narratively.
RESULTS: A total of 2,091 publications were identified; after duplicate removal and eligibility screening, 11 articles were included. No studies on risk factors for cluttering were found. For stuttering, 14 predictive risk factors were mapped, related to body functions and structures as well as contextual factors. Only two standardized screening tools were identified, both developed in Brazil: the Developmental Stuttering Risk Protocol and the Developmental Stuttering Screening Instrument.
CONCLUSION: Evidence on risk factors for cluttering in preschoolers is lacking. For stuttering, biological and contextual factors emerged as key predictors. Most available assessment methods are restricted to use by speech-language pathologists, highlighting gaps and opportunities for future research.