Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41397951›Full record

ArticleDyslexia (Chichester, England)2026

Toward an Improved Understanding of Dyslexia: Reflections on a New Consensus Definition and Its Implications.

Kinga Morsanyi, Silvia Paracchini, Saloni Krishnan, Catherine Manning, Jennifer Milne, Jo Van Herwegen, Michelle Luciano

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
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

7 authors.

Kinga MorsanyiDepartment of Mathematics Education, Loughborough University, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7550-1454
Silvia ParacchiniSchool of Medicine, University of St Andrews, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9934-8602
Saloni KrishnanPsychology and Language Sciences, University College London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6466-141X
Catherine ManningSchool of Psychology, University of Birmingham, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6862-2525
Jennifer MilneSchool of Humanities, Social Sciences and Law, University of Dundee, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0008-0766-2679
Jo Van HerwegenDepartment of Psychology and Human Development, Institute of Education, University College London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5316-1818
Michelle LucianoDepartment of Psychology, University of Edinburgh, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7306-3008

Funding

Economic and Social Research Council ES/W002914/1Medical Research Council MR/X502716/1
6 · The paper itself

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

Consensus Statements as TopicDyslexiaChildConsensusDelphi TechniqueHumansUnited KingdomcommentaryDelphi studydyslexia definitiondyslexia diagnosisinterventionmultifactorial approach

Identifiers

PMID41397951
PMCPMC12705494

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.