ArticleBrain sciences2019
Dyslexia: Still Not a Neurodevelopmental Disorder.
Article in Brain sciences, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- The DCIDE framework: systematic investigation of evolutionary hypotheses, exemplified with autism.Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society · 2025Review
- Dyslexia in the twenty-first century: a commentary on the IDA definition of dyslexia.Annals of dyslexia · 2024Article
- Fiber-specific structural properties relate to reading skills in children and adolescents.eLife · 2022Article
- A large-scale investigation of white matter microstructural associations with reading ability.NeuroImage · 2022Article
- Developmental Dyslexia: Environment Matters.Brain sciences · 2021Article
- Putting the Identification of Dyslexia into a Multi-Level Perspective.Brain sciences · 2020Article
- Article
- An Evolutionary Perspective of Dyslexia, Stress, and Brain Network Homeostasis.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2020Review
- Reply to "Dyslexia: Still Not a Neurodevelopmental Disorder".Brain sciences · 2019Article
- Evolving Concepts of Dyslexia and Their Implications for Research and Remediation.Frontiers in psychology · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We recently pointed out that there is no evidence to support the commonly held view that there is something wrong with the brains of children who have great difficulty learning to read. In response, it was argued that dyslexia should be considered to be a neurodevelopmental disorder because of its potential to adversely affect quality of life, and because there are differences between the brains of people with different levels of reading skill. We agree with these two points, but they are irrelevant to the issue in question, because neither establishes the critical notion of disrupted neurodevelopment; that is, a brain fault. Differences between groups do not imply that any individuals are abnormal, and calling a brain improperly developed on the basis of cultural issues has absurd implications. Even calling brains atypical is unfounded because reference to typicality hinges on knowledge of the relevant distributions, which is currently lacking. Moreover, there is at present no obvious role for neurology- or neuroscience-based input for the critical issue of the assessment and remediation of the reading difficulties themselves. We reiterate our conclusion that there is, at the moment, no credible foundation to support the claim that dyslexia is a neurodevelopmental disorder.
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.