Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23278309›Full record

ReviewJournal of child psychology and psychiatry, and allied disciplines2013

Research Review: Emanuel Miller Memorial Lecture 2012 - neuroscientific studies of intervention for language impairment in children: interpretive and methodological problems.

D V M Bishop

Abstract readReviewVideo-Audio Media
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of child psychology and psychiatry, and allied disciplines, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Annual Research Review: Educational neuroscience: progress and prospects.Journal of child psychology and psychiatry, and allied disciplines · 2019
    Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
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

1 author.

D V M BishopDepartment of Experimental Psychology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. dorothy.bishop@psy.ox.ac.uk

Funding

Wellcome Trust 082498
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOur ability to look at structure and function of a living brain has increased exponentially since the early 1970s. Many studies of developmental disorders now routinely include a brain imaging or electrophysiological component. Amid current enthusiasm for applications of neuroscience to educational interventions, we need to pause to consider what neuroimaging data can tell us. Images of brain activity are seductive, and have been used to give credibility to commercial interventions, yet we have only a limited idea of what the brain bases of language disorders are, let alone how to alter them. SCOPE AND

findingsA review of six studies of neuroimaging correlates of language intervention found recurring methodological problems: lack of an adequate control group, inadequate power, incomplete reporting of data, no correction for multiple comparisons, data dredging and failure to analyse treatment effects appropriately. In addition, there is a tendency to regard neuroimaging data as more meaningful than behavioural data, even though it is behaviour that interventions aim to alter.

conclusionIn our current state of knowledge, it would be better to spend research funds doing well-designed trials of behavioural treatment to establish which methods are effective, rather than rushing headlong into functional imaging studies of unproven treatments.

Indexed as

Language DisordersBehavior TherapyBrain DiseasesCase-Control StudiesChildElectroencephalographyHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingMagnetoencephalographyNeuroimagingRadiographyResearch DesignSpectroscopy, Near-Infrared

Identifiers

PMID23278309
PMCPMC3593170

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.