Dataset Information

Effectiveness of treatment approaches for children and adolescents with reading disabilities: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

ABSTRACT: Children and adolescents with reading disabilities experience a significant impairment in the acquisition of reading and spelling skills. Given the emotional and academic consequences for children with persistent reading disorders, evidence-based interventions are critically needed. The present meta-analysis extracts the results of all available randomized controlled trials. The aims were to determine the effectiveness of different treatment approaches and the impact of various factors on the efficacy of interventions. The literature search for published randomized-controlled trials comprised an electronic search in the databases ERIC, PsycINFO, PubMed, and Cochrane, and an examination of bibliographical references. To check for unpublished trials, we searched the websites clinicaltrials.com and ProQuest, and contacted experts in the field. Twenty-two randomized controlled trials with a total of 49 comparisons of experimental and control groups could be included. The comparisons evaluated five reading fluency trainings, three phonemic awareness instructions, three reading comprehension trainings, 29 phonics instructions, three auditory trainings, two medical treatments, and four interventions with coloured overlays or lenses. One trial evaluated the effectiveness of sunflower therapy and another investigated the effectiveness of motor exercises. The results revealed that phonics instruction is not only the most frequently investigated treatment approach, but also the only approach whose efficacy on reading and spelling performance in children and adolescents with reading disabilities is statistically confirmed. The mean effect sizes of the remaining treatment approaches did not reach statistical significance. The present meta-analysis demonstrates that severe reading and spelling difficulties can be ameliorated with appropriate treatment. In order to be better able to provide evidence-based interventions to children and adolescent with reading disabilities, research should intensify the application of blinded randomized controlled trials.

SUBMITTER: Galuschka K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3935956 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background: Anxiety disorder is the most prevalent mental disorder in children and adolescents. However, evidence for efficacy and acceptability between individual cognitive behavior therapy (I-CBT) and group cognitive behavior therapy (G-CBT) in anxiety disorders in children and adolescents remains unclear. Methods: Eight electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, Web of Science, CINAHL, PsycINFO, ProQuest, and LILACS) were searched from inception to October 2019. Randomized controlled trials comparing I-CBT with G-CBT for anxiety disorders in children and adolescents were included. The primary outcomes were efficacy (mean change in anxiety symptom scores) at post-treatment and acceptability (all-cause discontinuation). The secondary outcome was remission at post-treatment. Subgroup analyses were also conducted to examine whether the result would be influenced by age, number of treatment sessions, parental involvement, male/female sex, and number of participants. Results: Nine studies were selected in this meta-analysis. The pooled analyses indicated no significant difference between I-CBT and G-CBT for efficacy at post-treatment [standardized mean difference (SMD), -0.14; 95% confidence interval (CI), -0.37 to 0.09], acceptability [odds ratio (OR), 1.30; 95% CI, 0.61-2.77], and remission at post-treatment (OR, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.79-1.66). In the subgroup analysis of age, I-CBT was significantly more effective than G-CBT in adolescents at post-treatment (SMD, -0.77; 95% CI, -1.51 to -0.02), but not in children (SMD, 0.00; 95% CI, -0.02 to 0.20). However, the findings were not materially different from those of the efficacy subgroup analysis of number of treatment sessions, parental involvement, male/female sex, and number of participants. Conclusions: Based on those current evidence, I-CBT was shown to be more beneficial than G-CBT for anxiety disorders in adolescents, but not in children. However, further well-designed clinical studies should be performed to confirm these findings. Systematic Review Registration:http://osf.io/xrjkp, identifier: 10.17605/OSF.IO/XRJKP.

Project description:BackgroundExergames are promising exercise tools for improving health. To the best of our knowledge, no systematic review has compared the effects of commercial exergames and conventional exercises on improving executive functions (EFs) in children and adolescents.ObjectiveThis study aimed to investigate the effects of commercial exergames and conventional exercises on improving EFs in children and adolescents.MethodsFollowing the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines, 5 randomized controlled trial (RCT) databases (PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, PsycINFO, and SPORTDiscus) were searched from their inception to July 7, 2022, to identify relevant RCTs. The Cochrane Collaboration tool was used to evaluate the risk of bias for each study. GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) was used to evaluate the overall quality of evidence.ResultsIn total, 8 RCTs including 435 children and adolescents were included in the analysis. Commercial exergames had no significant benefit on overall EFs compared to conventional exercises (Hedges g=1.464, 95% CI -0.352 to 3.280; P=.06). For core EFs, there was no evidence to suggest that commercial exergames are more beneficial for improving cognitive flexibility (g=0.906, 95% CI -0.274 to 2.086; P=.13), inhibitory control (g=1.323, 95% CI -0.398 to 3.044; P=.13), or working memory (g=2.420, 95% CI -1.199 to 6.038; P=.19) than conventional exercises. We rated the evidence for overall EFs, cognitive flexibility, inhibitory control, and working memory as being of very low quality due to inconsistency (large heterogeneity) and imprecision (low number of people). Additionally, no effects of the intervention were observed in the acute and chronic groups.ConclusionsWe do not have strong evidence to support the benefit of commercial exergaming on EFs because we did not observe a Hedges g close to 0 with tight CIs. Further research is needed to confirm this hypothesis.Trial registrationPROSPERO CRD42022324111; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=324111.

Project description:BACKGROUND: The studies on the effectiveness of Chinese herbal medicines (CHM) in treating liver fibrosis (LF) were not consistent. This study aims to systematically review the effectiveness of CHM on treating LF patients. METHODS: Databases including MEDLINE, AMED, EMBASE, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, TCMOnline, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, and Chinese Medical Current Contents were searched up to March 2011. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving LF patients receiving CHM, Western medicine, combined CHM and Western medicine compared with placebo, Western medicine or no intervention were included. LF markers including serum hyaluronic acid (HA), laminin (LN), procollagen type III (PC-III), type IV collagen (IV-C), matrix metalloproteinase (MMP), and tissue inhibitors of metalloproteinase (TIMP) were measured as primary outcomes. Liver biochemistry, including alanine aminotransferase (ALT) and aspartarte aminotransferase (AST), and improvement of related clinical symptoms were measured as secondary outcomes. Risk of bias of allocation sequence, allocation concealment, blinding, incomplete outcome data, selective outcome reporting, and other biases were assessed. RESULTS: Twenty-three RCTs with 2123 participants were analyzed in subgroups of types of comparison and study quality. Fifteen studies were graded as good quality. CHM alone and combined with Western medicine showed significant improvements in HA, LN, PC-III and IV-C compared with Western medicine alone. However, there were no significant differences observed between CHM and placebo treatments. CONCLUSION: The current inconclusive results in determining the effectiveness of CHM treatment on LF, due to the poor methodological quality and high heterogeneity of the studies, suggests that large RCTs using standardized Chinese medicine syndrome diagnosis and CHM formulae with longer follow-up are required for further evaluation.

Dataset Information

Effectiveness of treatment approaches for children and adolescents with reading disabilities: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets