ArticleTheScientificWorldJournal2013
Language delay is not predictable from available risk factors.
Article in TheScientificWorldJournal, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 24 citations in OpenAlex.
- Trajectories towards poor mental health: Can general practice contribute to prevention of bad outcomes for young children?The European journal of general practice · 2025Article
- Prevalence of Language Delay in Children Under Five Years of Age in Taif, Saudi Arabia.Cureus · 2025Article
- Utility of a Language Screening Measure for Predicting Risk for Language Impairment in Bilinguals.American journal of speech-language pathology · 2015Article
- Evaluating a web-based clinical decision support system for language disorders screening in a nursery school.Journal of medical Internet research · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsTo investigate factors associated with language delay in a cohort of 30-month-old children and determine if identification of language delay requires active contact with families.
methodsData were collected at a pilot universal 30-month health contact. Health visitors used a simple two-item language screen. Data were obtained for 315 children; language delay was found in 33. The predictive capacity of 13 variables which could realistically be known before the 30-month contact was analysed.
resultsSeven variables were significantly associated with language delay in univariate analysis, but in logistic regression only five of these variables remained significant.
conclusionThe presence of one or more risk factors had a sensitivity of 89% and specificity of 45%, but a positive predictive value of only 15%. The presence of one or more of these risk factors thus can not reliably be used to identify language delayed children, nor is it possible to define an "at risk" population because male gender was the only significant demographic factor and it had an unacceptably low specificity (52.5%). It is not possible to predict which children will have language delay at 30 months. Identification of this important ESSENCE disorder requires direct clinical contact with all families.
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.