ReviewDyslexia (Chichester, England)2026
Dispelling Myths and Misunderstandings About Defining and Remediating Dyslexia.
Review in Dyslexia (Chichester, England), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Despite a strong base of scientifically supported research on dyslexia, pervasive misunderstandings continue, particularly in the United States, where state legislation, instructional practices and parent advocacy intersect in ways that influence how dyslexia is identified and treated. Historical misinterpretations about the aetiology and characteristics of dyslexia, evolving definitions of dyslexia and differing ideological beliefs about how to operationalize identifying dyslexia in schools all contribute to uncertainty surrounding what dyslexia is and is not. Misunderstandings have led to a host of fad and pseudoscientific treatments for dyslexia that are unsupported by scientifically based reading research. Misinformation about dyslexia continues to be shared by well-intentioned, but uninformed, advocates. Disinformation about dyslexia is also shared with education stakeholders for monetary gain. This article draws on scientifically based reading research to (a) illuminate current understandings and misunderstandings about dyslexia, (b) support evidence-based treatments, (c) dispel fad and pseudoscientific treatments and (d) highlight areas needing additional research.
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.