ArticleCoDAS2022
Notebook of experiences: a therapeutic resource in educational audiology.
Article in CoDAS, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo translate the My Experience Book toll into Portuguese, evaluate the translation content, readability, quality, and visual identity of the material, and make it available online.
methodsDescriptive, cross-sectional, quantitative, and qualitative study. The procedures consisted of five stages: translation of the material; evaluation and response to questionnaire one regarding translation; determining the validity of the content; readability assessment; availability of material online and evaluation of content aimed at quality and visual identity (questionnaire two). Twenty-five professionals (audiologists and physicians) participated in the study.
resultsThe translation of the notebook showed validity agreement rates greater than 90%. Readability rated the material easy to read. Among the 184 invited professionals, only 25 agreed to participate, demonstrating low adherence to the study. Most respondents agreed positively about the content and consistency of the translated material, videos, illustrative images, and captions. The material was also considered necessary by the majority of the evaluators. All audiologists reported using the instrument in clinical practice.
conclusionThe translated toll is of great relevance. It gathers practical information to create a notebook of experiences and guidance on using the material as an additional resource to stimulate the auditory skills of children with hearing impairment.
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.