Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24587110›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2014

Effectiveness of treatment approaches for children and adolescents with reading disabilities: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Katharina Galuschka, Elena Ise, Kathrin Krick, Gerd Schulte-Körne

Erratum issuedOpen access · goldAbstract readMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 74 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
74citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
34.7field-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

74 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 403 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Phonics training for English-speaking poor readers.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018
    Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

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

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

  • Erratum issued
5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Katharina GaluschkaDepartment of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
Elena IseDepartment of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Kathrin KrickDepartment of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
Gerd Schulte-KörneDepartment of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München · DEUniversity of Cologne · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Children and adolescents with reading disabilities experience a significant impairment in the acquisition of reading and spelling skills. Given the emotional and academic consequences for children with persistent reading disorders, evidence-based interventions are critically needed. The present meta-analysis extracts the results of all available randomized controlled trials. The aims were to determine the effectiveness of different treatment approaches and the impact of various factors on the efficacy of interventions. The literature search for published randomized-controlled trials comprised an electronic search in the databases ERIC, PsycINFO, PubMed, and Cochrane, and an examination of bibliographical references. To check for unpublished trials, we searched the websites clinicaltrials.com and ProQuest, and contacted experts in the field. Twenty-two randomized controlled trials with a total of 49 comparisons of experimental and control groups could be included. The comparisons evaluated five reading fluency trainings, three phonemic awareness instructions, three reading comprehension trainings, 29 phonics instructions, three auditory trainings, two medical treatments, and four interventions with coloured overlays or lenses. One trial evaluated the effectiveness of sunflower therapy and another investigated the effectiveness of motor exercises. The results revealed that phonics instruction is not only the most frequently investigated treatment approach, but also the only approach whose efficacy on reading and spelling performance in children and adolescents with reading disabilities is statistically confirmed. The mean effect sizes of the remaining treatment approaches did not reach statistical significance. The present meta-analysis demonstrates that severe reading and spelling difficulties can be ameliorated with appropriate treatment. In order to be better able to provide evidence-based interventions to children and adolescent with reading disabilities, research should intensify the application of blinded randomized controlled trials.

Indexed as

AdolescentChildDyslexiaExerciseEyeglassesHelianthusHumansPlant ExtractsRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicReadingRemedial TeachingPlant Extracts

Identifiers

PMID24587110
PMCPMC3935956
OpenAlexW2008807393

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.