Gattie Max, Lieven Elena, Kluk Karolina
Manchester Centre for Audiology & Deafness (ManCAD), University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9PL, UK; Department of Otolaryngology, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Searle Research Building, 323 E. Superior Street, Chicago, IL 60611-3008, USA.
LuCiD (the ESRC International Centre for Language and Communicative Development), University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9PL, UK.
J Fluency Disord. 2025 Mar;83:106085. doi: 10.1016/j.jfludis.2024.106085. Epub 2024 Oct 9.
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.
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.
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).
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.
回顾口吃流行病学,主要目的是评估在大群体中识别口吃所使用的方法。次要目的是对成人口吃患病率进行最佳估计;确定能够根据儿童期与成人期发病以及隐蔽性与公开性症状对口吃进行亚组划分的数据;并对口吃作为共病诊断出现的程度进行初步评估。
遵循PRISMA指南进行系统评价。质量评估基于乔安娜·布里格斯研究所患病率批判性评估工具,并针对口吃评估调整了标准。
对15组数据进行了质量评估,其中3组符合纳入标准。这些数据估计14 - 17岁成人口吃患病率为0.67%(塔吉波尔等人,2013年);16 - 20岁为0.21%(图尔等人,2021年);21岁以上为0.63%(克雷格等人,2002年)。
系统评价表明成人口吃患病率在0.6% - 0.7%之间。由于一般人群中口吃患病率较低,会出现假阳性悖论,因此在一般人群中测量口吃时需要非常高的特异性。未能达到高特异性(建议为99.9%)会因假阳性的存在导致统计效力丧失。假阳性悖论的一个推论是,在一般人群口吃患病率估计受到明显影响之前,口吃测量的敏感性可能相对较低(建议为90%)。尽管放宽了对口吃测量敏感性的要求,但隐蔽性口吃可能被低估了。可以使用前瞻性队列研究的数据来解释隐蔽性口吃,但这种修订似乎不太可能超过广泛接受的1%的成人口吃患病率估计;有关0.96%的估计,请参阅加蒂、利文和克鲁克(2024年本期)。图尔等人(2021年)报告的数据在用于估计口吃患病率时较为异常,估计值相对较低可能是由于其来源为征兵数据和/或全面医疗筛查。