ArticleAnnals of dyslexia2024
The COVID generation: Online dyslexia treatment equally effective as face-to-face treatment in a Dutch sample.
Article in Annals of dyslexia, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Serious gaming and eye-tracking for the screening, monitoring, and diagnosis of neurodevelopmental disorders in children: a systematic literature review.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2025Pooled it
- Unsupervised Machine Learning in the Evaluation of Telerehabilitation Interventions for Reading Fluency.International journal of telerehabilitation · 2026Article
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
Due to pandemic-induced lockdown(s) in 2020, dyslexia treatment was forced to move to online platforms. This study examined whether Dutch children who received online treatment progressed as much in their reading and spelling performance as children who received the usual face-to-face treatment. To this end, 254 children who received treatment-as-usual were compared to 162 children who received online treatment with Bayesian methods. The advantage of a Bayesian approach is that it can provide evidence for and against the null hypothesis whereas frequentist approaches only provide evidence against it. We found that children in the online treatment condition received slightly fewer treatment sessions but progressed equally after controlling for the number of sessions compared to the treatment-as-usual condition. These results have clinical and practical implications as they show that reading treatment can be successfully delivered online.
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.