Question · asked by 1 review
Phonics training vs control (no training or alternative training): Reading comprehension
What each review found
Current versions only| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Phonics training vs control (no training or alternative training) Reading comprehension · English‐speaking poor readers Phonics training for English‐speaking poor readers (2018) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | no estimate extracted | 5 studies · 343 participants | Low |
Phonics training vs control (no training or alternative training) Reading comprehension Immediate · English‐speaking poor readers Phonics training for English‐speaking poor readers (2012) · Cochrane Headline outcomes onlyearlier version CD009115.PUB2, superseded | no estimate extracted | 3 studies · 173 participants | Moderate |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Phonics training for English‐speaking poor readers 2018 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | Not reported | list not extracted yet | Not assessed |
Studies behind the findings
None of these reviews ties its included studies to this outcome in the data here. Cochrane reviews and reviews with headline outcomes only do not list their studies yet.
How reviews are matched to this question
Reviews word the same question differently. Four decision models (TypeSafe's Jev, Liquid AI's d1-ultra, SubQ Snap and Baseten's Elephant) judged each wording of the population, intervention, comparator and outcome against the others; two wordings count as the same when at least three of them agree and none clearly disagrees, and findings count as this question only when all four elements match. Timing, setting and subgroup never split a question: they are shown on each finding.