ArticleInternational journal of speech-language pathology2012
Pharmacological dosage concepts: how useful are they for educators and speech-language pathologists?
Article in International journal of speech-language pathology, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Effectiveness of voice therapy in patients with vocal fold nodules: a systematic search and narrative review.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2020Pooled it
- Intensive Language Action Therapy in Chronic Aphasia: A Randomized Clinical Trial Examining Guidance by Constraint.American journal of speech-language pathology · 2016Trial
Corrections and comments
- Comment on
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The first part of this response to Baker (2012) examines studies that have attempted to determine the optimum treatment intensity of reading interventions associated with a Response to Intervention (RTI) model of service delivery. In general, the findings indicated that differences in broad measures of intensity (duration and scheduling) did not result in differences in reading outcomes. These non-significant findings and Baker's excellent discussion of all of the factors that impact treatment outcomes led me to question how useful pharmacological dosage concepts are for educators and speech-language pathologists (SLPs). This commentary concludes by acknowledging that the more information available about the active ingredients of treatment episodes, the better able one will be to design effective and efficient interventions to improve speech, language, and literacy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
22646314What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.