Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22513218›Full record

ReviewLancet (London, England)2012

Developmental dyslexia.

Robin L Peterson, Bruce F Pennington

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Lancet (London, England), 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 250 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
250citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
56.7field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

250 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 732 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Migraine and Reduced Binocular Vision in Adolescents: A Cross-Sectional Study.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2026
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article

190 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Robin L PetersonDepartment of Psychology, University of Denver, Denver, CO 80208, USA. robin.peterson@du.edu
Bruce F Pennington
University of Colorado Denver · USUniversity of Denver · US

Funding

VALIDITY OF SUBTYPES OF ADHDP50HD027802 · NICHD · UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO AT BOULDER · PI ERIK G WILLCUTT · 1990 to 2026
$44.9M
NICHD NIH HHS P50 HD027802NICHD NIH HHS P50 HD27802
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Dyslexia is a neurodevelopmental disorder that is characterised by slow and inaccurate word recognition. Dyslexia has been reported in every culture studied, and mounting evidence draws attention to cross-linguistic similarity in its neurobiological and neurocognitive bases. Much progress has been made across research specialties spanning the behavioural, neuropsychological, neurobiological, and causal levels of analysis in the past 5 years. From a neuropsychological perspective, the phonological theory remains the most compelling, although phonological problems also interact with other cognitive risk factors. Work confirms that, neurobiologically, dyslexia is characterised by dysfunction of the normal left hemisphere language network and also implicates abnormal white matter development. Studies accounting for reading experience demonstrate that many recorded neural differences show causes rather than effects of dyslexia. Six predisposing candidate genes have been identified, and evidence shows gene by environment interaction.

Indexed as

NeuropsychologyAdolescentAdultBrainChildChild, PreschoolChinaDyslexiaHumansInfantInfant, NewbornLanguagePhonetics

Identifiers

PMID22513218
PMCPMC3465717
OpenAlexW83006487

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.