‘Keller & Barnes’ after 5 years — still inadmissible as evidence.

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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

1. How Experiences of Child Abuse Pediatricians and Lessons Learned May Inform Health Care Providers Focused on Improving Elder Abuse Geriatrics Clinical Practice and Research.Journal of family violence · 2021
   Article
2. Rachitic change and vitamin D status in young children with fractures.Skeletal radiology · 2020
   Observational
3. The "New Science" of Abusive Head Trauma.International journal on child maltreatment : research, policy and practice · 2019
   Article
4. Shaken baby syndrome is real.Pediatric radiology · 2018
   Article
5. The etiology and significance of fractures in infants and young children: a critical multidisciplinary review.Pediatric radiology · 2016
   Review

Corrections and comments

• Comment on
  Rickets vs. abuse: a national and international epidemic.2008

Authors and funding

1 author.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as