Stuttering prevalence, incidence and recovery rates depend on how we define it: comment on Yairi & Ambrose' article Epidemiology of stuttering: 21st century advances.

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. Bilingualism as a risk factor for false reports of stuttering in the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study (ECLS-K:2011).Frontiers in psychology · 2023
   Article
2. Developmental Stuttering in Children Who Are Hard of Hearing.Language, speech, and hearing services in schools · 2017
   Article
3. The disfluent speech of bilingual spanish-english children: considerations for differential diagnosis of stuttering.Language, speech, and hearing services in schools · 2015
   Article
4. Non-verbal sensorimotor timing deficits in children and adolescents who stutter.Frontiers in psychology · 2015
   Article

Corrections and comments

• Commented on by
  Defining stuttering for research purposes.2013
• Comment on
  Epidemiology of stuttering: 21st century advances.2013

Authors and funding

1 author.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as