Talk:Stuttering therapy

August 2008
Sources for future edits: [www.mnsu.edu/comdis/kuster/journal/osborne/cvr.pp] - Samuel  Tan  17:19, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Quickfail GA
This article has a clean-up tag and may therefor be quick-failed as a Good Article Nominee. I suggest you address the issues post-haste so that the candidacy remain viable. the skomorokh 13:07, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

This article needs major work
This article has some good stuff but it needs major work. In recent years there have been three literature reviews, four systematic reviews, and one meta-analysis, covering more than 200 studies, published in recent years in the speech-language pathology journals. These reviews constitute Evidence-Based Practice (EBP) in the field of stuttering. This article has little or no EBP. It mostly has some quotes from a few "experts" in the field and the rest is from a article in "Family Physician" magazine, which isn't a journal of speech-language pathology.

I put together the EBP reviews as a short, easy-to-read e-book and I put the GNU General Public License "copyleft" on it so y'all are free to use it on Wikipedia. You can download my e-book free from. If no one works on this article I'll try to do something when have time.--TDKehoe (talk) 22:36, 16 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The e-book you mention above isn't a reliable source as it is self-published and cannot be used for anything. I've taken a look at the proposed article that you have posted here .  I strongly disagree its inclusion here or even merging any of its content without very careful consideration.  Among the problems are the use of some very ancient sources, misrepresentation and reinterpretation of original data contrary to no original research, and a return to the  pat promotion of altered auditory feedback approaches, for which Tdkehoe has an admitted COI, and which actually seem to be an ineffective stuttering treatment - the research used to support it described as pseudoscience in a peer-reviewed journal.[][].  See WP:MEDRS and WP:MEDHOW  If Tdkehoe can link to the three recent literature reviews, four systematic reviews, and one meta-analysis that he mentions that would be very helpful. Contributing only to the talkpage and making suggestions here is likely the best way to deal with this situation.   --Slp1 (talk) 23:18, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Addition to Pharmacological section
Hello,

I found a meta analysis that looked at pharmacological treatments for childhood-onset fluency disorder and found that none of the medications were proven effective. The information present in this section already suggests this, but this could provide another resource- which is also a meta-analysis. Here is a short paragraph I wrote about some of the findings.

Numerous associations between pathways of stuttering development and other types of disorders have been made. Because of these associations researchers have hypothesized that a variety of pharmacological treatments should ameliorate problems with stuttering. Anticonvulsant agents used to treat epilepsy have been tested on those who stutter, but showed no significant results. Antidepressants, both selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and tricyclic, have shown no effect on stuttering symptoms; nor have antipsychotic agents used to treat bipolar and schizophrenia. It is important that these studies have found negative results because the implications of taking these medications can be very severe.

(Ehealy92 (talk) 00:09, 5 December 2015 (UTC))

=References==