Ostiz-Blanco Mikel, Bernacer Javier, Garcia-Arbizu Irati, Diaz-Sanchez Patricia, Rello Luz, Lallier Marie, Arrondo Gonzalo
Mind-Brain Group, Institute for Culture and Society (ICS), University of Navarra, Pamplona, Spain.
IE Business School, IE University, Madrid, Spain.
Front Psychol. 2021 Sep 16;12:652948. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.652948. eCollection 2021.
The use of electronic interventions to improve reading is becoming a common resource. This systematic review aims to describe the main characteristics of randomized controlled trials or quasi-experimental studies that have used these tools to improve first-language reading, in order to highlight the features of the most reliable studies and guide future research. The whole procedure followed the PRISMA guidelines, and the protocol was registered before starting the process (doi: 10.17605/OSF.IO/CKM4N). Searches in Scopus, PubMed, Web of Science and an institutional reference aggregator (Unika) yielded 6,230 candidate articles. After duplicate removal, screening, and compliance of eligibility criteria, 55 studies were finally included. They were research studies on improving first-language reading, both in children and adults, and including a control group. Thirty-three different electronic tools were employed, most of them in English, and studies were very diverse in sample size, length of intervention, and control tasks. Risk of bias was analyzed with the PEDro scale, and all studies had a medium or low risk. However, risk of bias due to conflicts of interest could not be evaluated in most studies, since they did not include a statement on this issue. Future research on this topic should include randomized intervention and control groups, with sample sizes over 65 per group, interventions longer than 15 h, and a proper disclosure of possible conflicts of interest. : The whole procedure followed the PRISMA guidelines, and the protocol was registered before starting the process in the Open Science Framework (doi: 10.17605/OSF.IO/CKM4N).
使用电子干预手段来提高阅读能力正成为一种常见的资源。本系统综述旨在描述使用这些工具来提高第一语言阅读能力的随机对照试验或准实验研究的主要特征,以突出最可靠研究的特点并指导未来研究。整个过程遵循PRISMA指南,并且在开始该过程之前已在开放科学框架中注册了方案(doi:10.17605/OSF.IO/CKM4N)。在Scopus、PubMed、科学网和一个机构参考文献聚合器(Unika)中进行检索,共获得6230篇候选文章。在去除重复项、筛选并符合纳入标准后,最终纳入了55项研究。这些研究是关于提高儿童和成人第一语言阅读能力的研究,并且都包括一个对照组。使用了33种不同的电子工具,其中大多数是英文的,而且研究在样本量、干预时长和对照任务方面差异很大。使用PEDro量表分析了偏倚风险,所有研究的偏倚风险为中度或低度。然而,由于大多数研究未包含关于利益冲突的声明,因此无法评估因利益冲突导致的偏倚风险。关于该主题的未来研究应包括随机干预组和对照组,每组样本量超过65,干预时长超过15小时,并适当披露可能的利益冲突。:整个过程遵循PRISMA指南,并且在开始该过程之前已在开放科学框架中注册了方案(doi:10.17605/OSF.IO/CKM4N)。