ArticleInternational journal of speech-language pathology2025
Contemporary clinical conversations about stuttering: What does brain imaging research mean to clinicians?
Article in International journal of speech-language pathology, 2025. 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.
- Cluster analysis of articulatory trajectories in fluent nonword productions separates adults who stutter from fluent speakers.Scientific reports · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo discuss among neuroscientists and community speech-language pathologists what brain imaging research means to clinicians.
methodTwo university neuroscientists and two speech-language pathologists in private practice discussed the matter. Written conversational turns in an exchange were limited to 100 words each. When that written dialogue was concluded, each participant provided 200 words of final reflection about the matter.
resultFor now, neuroscience treatments are not available for clinicians to use. But sometime in the future, a critical mass of neuroscientists will likely produce such treatments. The neuroscientists expressed diverse views about the methods that might be used for that to occur.
conclusionNeuroscience does have practical clinical application at present and, in a way, that does not exclude a concurrent influence of the social model of disability. As such, the current practices of clinicians are supported by basic neuroscience research.
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.