Comments on adolescent peer crowd affiliation: a response to Cross and Fletcher (2009).

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

1. Learning what our target audiences think and do: extending segmentation to all four bases.BMC public health · 2019
   Article
2. Bars, Nightclubs, and Cancer Prevention: New Approaches to Reduce Young Adult Cigarette Smoking.American journal of preventive medicine · 2017
   Article
3. Why Peer Crowds Matter: Incorporating Youth Subcultures and Values in Health Education Campaigns.American journal of public health · 2017
   Article
4. Using peer crowds to segment Black youth for smoking intervention.Health promotion practice · 2014
   Article

Corrections and comments

• Comment on
  The challenge of adolescent crowd research: defining the crowd.2009

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Funding

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as