The Ohio State University, Columbus, USA.
Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 2009 Nov;18(4):343-60. doi: 10.1044/1058-0360(2009/09-0006). Epub 2009 Jul 28.
The purpose of this systematic review was to examine the current evidence for the use of oral motor exercises (OMEs) on speech (i.e., speech physiology, speech production, and functional speech outcomes) as a means of supporting further research and clinicians' use of evidence-based practice.
The peer-reviewed literature from 1960 to 2007 was searched for articles examining the use of OMEs to affect speech physiology, production, or functional outcomes (i.e., intelligibility). Articles that met selection criteria were appraised by 2 reviewers and vetted by a 3rd for methodological quality, then characterized as efficacy or exploratory studies.
Fifteen studies met inclusion criteria; of these, 8 included data relevant to the effects of OMEs on speech physiology, 8 on speech production, and 8 on functional speech outcomes. Considerable variation was noted in the participants, interventions, and treatment schedules. The critical appraisals identified significant weaknesses in almost all studies.
Insufficient evidence to support or refute the use of OMEs to produce effects on speech was found in the research literature. Discussion is largely confined to a consideration of the need for more well-designed studies using well-described participant groups and alternative bases for evidence-based practice.
本系统评价的目的在于检查目前关于口腔运动练习（OME）在言语方面的应用（即言语生理学、言语产生和功能言语结果）的证据，以支持进一步的研究和临床医生采用循证实践。
从 1960 年到 2007 年，检索了关于使用 OME 影响言语生理学、产生或功能结果（即清晰度）的研究文章。符合选择标准的文章由 2 位审阅者进行评估，并由第 3 位审阅者进行方法学质量审查，然后被描述为疗效或探索性研究。
15 项研究符合纳入标准；其中 8 项研究包括了 OME 对言语生理学影响的数据，8 项研究包括了言语产生的数据，8 项研究包括了功能言语结果的数据。研究中参与者、干预措施和治疗方案存在很大差异。批判性评价发现，几乎所有研究都存在明显的弱点。
研究文献中没有发现支持或反驳使用 OME 产生言语效果的充分证据。讨论主要局限于需要更多设计良好的研究，使用描述良好的参与者群体和替代循证实践基础。
