Critiques Strengthen and Improve the Original Findings: Rejoinder to Commentaries on Sullins (2022b).

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. Sullins vs Strizzi and Di Nucci: A Brief Rejoinder to Sullins (2023b).Archives of sexual behavior · 2024
   Article
2. Sullins vs Strizzi and Di Nucci: A Brief Rejoinder to Sullins (2023b).Archives of sexual behavior · 2024
   Article
3. Reply to Sullins (2023) on the Ethical and Human Rights Concerns of Sexual Orientation Change Efforts.Archives of sexual behavior · 2023
   Article
4. Reply to Strizzi and Di Nucci (2023b) on Ethical and Human Rights Concerns of Sexual Orientation Change Efforts.Archives of sexual behavior · 2023
   Article

Corrections and comments

• Commented on by
  Reply to Sullins (2023) on the Ethical and Human Rights Concerns of Sexual Orientation Change Efforts.2023
• Comment on
  Correcting a False Research Narrative: A Commentary on Sullins (2022).2023

Authors and funding

1 author.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.