ArticleDyslexia (Chichester, England)2026
Toward an Improved Understanding of Dyslexia: Reflections on a New Consensus Definition and Its Implications.
Article in Dyslexia (Chichester, England), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Debating the Delphi View of Dyslexia: A Response to Metsala, Morsanyi and Colleagues.Dyslexia (Chichester, England) · 2026Article
- Toward an Improved Understanding of Dyslexia: Reflections on a New Consensus Definition and Its Implications.Dyslexia (Chichester, England) · 2026Article
- Arithmetic performance in children with typical and impaired literacy skills.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Inconsistencies in the definition and diagnosis of dyslexia continue to impede research, assessment, and intervention. This paper, authored by members of the UK Specific Learning Difficulties Network, critically examines a recent effort to establish a consensus definition and guidance for assessment and intervention for dyslexia, which involved 58 experts from academia, practice and lived experience. The resulting framework offers a developmental, multifactorial and continuum-based perspective. It expands on prevailing definitions by highlighting the influence of multiple genetic, environmental and cognitive factors, as well as developmental changes in dyslexia profiles. However, unresolved issues remain, including ambiguity around prevalence and the role of general cognitive functioning, and a lack of clear guidance for educators. The definition also lacks clarity on assessment and intervention, especially in global contexts where teaching practice may be highly variable. Co-occurrence with language and mathematics difficulties is acknowledged but underexplored, limiting implications for practice. Whilst the Delphi method provides useful consensus, we also reflect on its limitations, including potential bias in the composition of the panel. Overall, the framework is a valuable step forward, but unresolved issues remain both from a research perspective and in terms of practical implementation.
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.