FAQs

To establish the speechBITE database, references were identified through a comprehensive search of the relevant literature on eight databases (MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, ERIC, AMED, LLBA, and EBM Reviews). Members of the speechBITE advisory committee also contributed key papers from their personal collections. In addition, speech pathologists from the University of Sydney and other academic institutions have also generously contributed treatment studies for inclusion in the database. Auto alerts are currently set up on five databases (MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, ERIC, and AMED) to ensure that the treatment studies catalogued on this website are regularly updated.

Treatment studies on speechBITE must fulfil the following criteria:

1. The paper is published as a full-length paper (not an abstract) in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.
2. The population treated will have, or be at risk of, a communication disorder and/or dysphagia.
3. The treatment is currently part of speech pathology practice or could become part of speech pathology practice. The intervention need not be carried out by speech pathologists.
4. The trial includes evaluation of at least one intervention and includes empirical data regarding treatment efficacy (i.e. editorials, non-systematic reviews or case descriptions are not included).

Clinical practice guidelines are systematically developed statements that help clinicians and consumers make appropriate healthcare decisions. Such guidelines present statements or recommendations of ‘best practice’ based on a thorough evaluation of the evidence from published research studies on the outcomes of treatment (NHMRC, 2000).

Clinical practice guidelines need to meet six criteria in order to be included on speechBITE. These criteria are based on those developed by the National Health and Medical Research Council clinical practice guideline portal. The six criteria are as follows:

1. The clinical practice guideline was produced under the auspices of a health profession specialty association, health care organisation, relevant professional society, public or private organisation, government agency at the Federal, State, or local level. A clinical practice guideline developed and issued by an individual or group of individuals not officially sponsored or supported by one of the above types of organisations does not meet the inclusion criteria for speechBITE.
2. A systematic literature search and review of existing scientific evidence published in peer-reviewed journals was performed during the guideline development OR the guidelines were based on a systematic review published within the five years preceding publication of the guideline.
3. The clinical practice guideline contains systematically developed statements that include recommendations, strategies, or information that assists speech pathologists or clients to make decisions about appropriate health care for specific clinical circumstances.
4. At least one specific recommendation in the guideline concerns at least one intervention that is currently part of speech pathology practice or that could become part of speech pathology practice.
5. The clinical practice guideline was published or revised within the previous five years from the date it is listed on speechBITE.
6. The clinical practice guideline is publicly available either by open/free access or by purchase.

The selection process for inclusion of clinical practice guidelines on speechBITE does not include an assessment of the methodological rigour, potential biases or accuracy of recommendations contained within the guidelines.

The search results you obtain on speechBITE are listed according to a level of evidence hierarchy. Whilst there are several such hierarchies available, speechBITE uses the current levels of evidence table from the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia (NHMRC) in deciding which order to list study designs on speechBITE.

Level of evidence tables are a general guide to the quality of evidence, with the designs higher up in the hierrachy considered to have less risk of bias. However, the level of evidence does not necessarily equate to strength of evidence. This is why speechBITE provides methodological ratings on the PEDro-P scale for group comparison studies.

The following table lists the current NHMRC levels and provides an explanation of how the first four intervention study designs are indexed and listed on speechBITE.

Single-case study designs are not included in most level of evidence hierachies. Single-case research is a common design used in speech pathology research to study the individual effects of an intervention, especially in populations where randomised controlled trials are not feasible. An analysis of the speechBITE website found that single-case research was the most frequently used design for intervention research on speech, language and literacy disorders (Munro et al, 2013) (PDF 233 Kb). Likewise, a similar analysis of the PsycBITE database also found that single-case research was the dominant design used in 70% of aphasia therapy studies on this database (Togher et al, 2009).

In recognition of the relevance and importance of single-case research to clinical practice, speechBITE has chosen to include these studies in the database. It should be noted that only single-case studies with both pre and post treatment data are included in the database (i.e. case descriptions or case reports without pre/post data are excluded).

Clinical practice guidelines are also listed on speechBITE as they are considered an important EBP resource for the translation of the best evidence into clinical practice.

Currently speechBITE rates randomised and non-randomised controlled trials. Systematic reviews, case series, single-case designs, and clinical practice guidelines are not rated according to quality on speechBITE.

The PEDro-P scale is used to rate randomised and non-randomised controlled trials.

If you disagree with a rating of a treatment study on speechBITE, you can contact us. Please specify the authors, title and source of the study along with your reason for why you think the trial has been incorrectly rated. It is helpful if you can specify the location in the article (page and paragraph) where the supporting information can be found. All disputed ratings will be reviewed by the advisory committee.

The speechBITE advisory committee published an article (Murray et al, 2013) evaluating the reliability of the PEDro-P ratings on speechBITE. The speechBITE PEDro-P ratings ranged from fair to excellent for both the total score and for each of the 11 scale items. Furthermore, reliability was equal to that of similar allied health databases.

speechBITE is fortunate to have a number of dedicated volunteers who rate papers on a regular basis. At present we are not able to train any more volunteer raters. If you would like to learn how to use the PEDro-P scale to rate randomised and non-randomised controlled trials yourself, speechBITE has a free online training program.

If you disagree with a rating of a particular study on speechBITE, contact us via email. Please specify the authors, title and source of the study along with your reason for why you think the study has been incorrectly rated. It is helpful if you can specify the location in the article (page and paragraph) where the supporting information can be found. All queries regarding ratings will be reviewed by the speechBITE committee and adjustments will be made based on a consensus decision made by the committee. On speechBITE each paper is indexed according to the following domains:

1. Speech Pathology Practice Area
2. Type of intervention
3. Within this population
4. Age group
5. Type of service delivered
6. Research design

If you believe that a paper has been indexed incorrectly, please let us know. Contact us via email and cut and paste the record from the “Search results” into the message. Please identify the type of indexing error, e.g. incorrect categorisation as “Group” under “Type of service delivered” instead of “Individual”, and please provide some reasoning or justification. The speechBITE committee will review the indexing of the paper and make adjustments as warranted.

If you know of a study or paper that you think should be included on speechBITE, please first check that it meets the selection criteria for inclusion. If it does, please contact us via email with the reference details (authors, date, title and journal).

speechBITE provides help with search strategies for simple and advanced searches, for managing search results.

speechBITE needs sponsorship to continue to be able to provide FREE access anywhere in the world to speech pathologists and communication specialists. We also need donations to help us continue to find and rate past and future research trials. Sponsorship of speechBITE will promote the use of evidence-based practice by health professionals and in doing so assist the wellbeing of all those with communication and swallowing difficulties. If you would like to sponsor the activities of speechBITE and make a difference please contact us.