ArticleChildren (Basel, Switzerland)2021
Clinical Utility of Repeated Urimal Test of Articulation and Phonation for Patients with Childhood Apraxia of Speech.
Article in Children (Basel, Switzerland), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Pediatric Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Childhood apraxia of speech (CAS) causes inconstant oromotor production. We investigated the clinical efficacy of repeated urimal test of articulation and phonation (U-TAP) in CAS patients. Twenty-eight children were recruited: 19 with CAS and 9 with functional articulation disorder (FAD). Four age-matched typically developing children were also recruited. U-TAP was performed twice repeatedly, and the error rate of consonant accuracy (CA) was measured. Preschool Receptive-Expressive Language Scale (PRES) was also performed. The mean U-TAP CA showed a significant difference between the three groups, with 42.04% for CAS, 77.92% for FAD, and 99.68% for the normal group (
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.