Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22787505›Full record

ReviewDeutsches Arzteblatt international2012

Screening in child health: studies of the efficacy and relevance of preventive care practices.

Peter Weber, Oskar Jenni

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Deutsches Arzteblatt international, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. 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

2 authors.

Peter WeberDepartment of Neuropediatrics, University Children’s Hospital Basel. Peter.Weber@ukbb.ch
Oskar Jenni

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPediatric screening enables the prevention or early detection of diseases and developmental disturbances in infancy and childhood. Screening is a standard component of pediatric practice in many countries, but its scientific basis is not well known.

methodsThe scientific justification for pediatric screening beyond the neonatal period is presented on the basis of a selective review of the literature on some aspects of pediatric screening.

resultsThe level of evidence varies highly among pediatric screening interventions and can be difficult to determine because of confounding variables. Parent counseling is associated with improvements in child-raising competence, accident prevention, and reading behavior. The early detection of abnormalities in a child's motor, linguistic, mental, or social development is possible and often leads to effective early interventions. Cyanotic congenital heart defects can be detected with 63% sensitivity and 99.8% specificity; cerebral palsy can be diagnosed with 33% to 100% sensitivity and 52.3% to 100% specificity (different figures from multiple studies). Physical therapy seems to improve some manifestations of cerebral palsy. Motor development at 90 days is correlated with motor development at 57 months (72% sensitivity, 91% specificity). A developmental quotient above 85 in a two-year-old child is correlated with an intelligence quotient above 85 when the child is 7 years old.

conclusionThere is an increasing amount of scientific evidence in favor of pediatric screening. Nonetheless, further epidemiological studies are needed.

Indexed as

ChildChild, PreschoolDevelopmental DisabilitiesHeart Defects, CongenitalHumansInfantInfant, NewbornMass ScreeningPrevalencePreventive Medicine

Identifiers

PMID22787505
PMCPMC3393854

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.