Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24238391›Full record

ArticleJournal of fluency disorders2013

Defining stuttering for research purposes.

Ehud Yairi

Abstract readLetterComment
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of fluency disorders, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Developmental Stuttering in Children Who Are Hard of Hearing.Language, speech, and hearing services in schools · 2017
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Ehud YairiUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, United States; Tel Aviv University, Israel. Electronic address: e-yairi@illinois.edu.

Funding

Subtypes and Associated Risk Factors in StutteringR01DC005210 · NIDCD · UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS URBANA-CHAMPAIGN · PI AMBROSE, NICOLINE GRINAGER · 2002 to 2013
$4.9M
NIDCD NIH HHS R01DC05210
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This is a response to a Letter to the Editor entitled "Stuttering prevalence, incidence and recovery rates depend on how we define it: Comment on Yairi & Ambrose' article Epidemiology of Stuttering: 21st Century advances" by Paul Brocklehurst (2013). The criticism was directed specifically toward Yairi and Ambrose' conclusions, based on review of recent studies, regarding the incidence and prevalence of stuttering. In this response, Brocklehurst's arguments and suggestions of criteria for incidence research are discussed and negated.

Indexed as

FemaleHumansMaleStutteringDefinitionIncidenceStuttering

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.