ArticleFrontiers in neurology2019
Clinical Expertise Is Core to an Evidence-Based Approach to Auditory Processing Disorder: A Reply to Neijenhuis et al. 2019.
Article in Frontiers in neurology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- It is time to change the way we think about hearing evaluation.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 · 2024Article
- On the Difference of Scoring in Speech in Babble Tests.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Speech cortical activation and connectivity in typically developing children and those with listening difficulties.NeuroImage. Clinical · 2022Article
- Implications for Early Diagnosis and Treatment in Schizophrenia Due to Correlation between Auditory Perceptual Deficits and Cognitive Impairment.Journal of clinical medicine · 2021Article
- Speech Perception in Noise Predicts Oral Narrative Comprehension in Children With Developmental Language Disorder.Frontiers in psychology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 9 institutions in 7 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The opinion article "An Evidence-based Perspective on Misconceptions Regarding Pediatric Auditory Processing Disorder" by Neijenhuis et al. (1) presents a distorted view of the evidence-based approach used in medicine. The authors focus on the amorphous non-diagnostic entity "listening difficulties" not auditory processing disorder (APD) and create confusion that could jeopardize clinical services to individuals with APD. In our perspective article, we rebut Neijenhuis et al. (1), and more importantly, we present a rationale for evidence-based practice founded on the premise that research on APD is only clinically applicable when conducted on clinical populations diagnosed with APD.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.