Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27226967›Full record

ArticleCMAJ open

Screening for developmental delay among children aged 1-4 years: a systematic review.

Rachel Warren, Meghan Kenny, Teresa Bennett, Donna Fitzpatrick-Lewis, Muhammad Usman Ali, Diana Sherifali, Parminder Raina

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in CMAJ open. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien · 2021
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Developmental surveillance of young children in clinical settings: Time to step out or step up?CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2017
    Article
  15. Recommendations on screening for developmental delay.CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2016
    Review
  16. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Rachel WarrenEvidence Review and Synthesis Centre, and Offord Centre for Child Studies, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.
Meghan KennyEvidence Review and Synthesis Centre, and Offord Centre for Child Studies, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.
Teresa BennettEvidence Review and Synthesis Centre, and Offord Centre for Child Studies, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.
Donna Fitzpatrick-LewisEvidence Review and Synthesis Centre, and Offord Centre for Child Studies, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.
Muhammad Usman AliEvidence Review and Synthesis Centre, and Offord Centre for Child Studies, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.
Diana SherifaliEvidence Review and Synthesis Centre, and Offord Centre for Child Studies, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.
Parminder RainaEvidence Review and Synthesis Centre, and Offord Centre for Child Studies, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundExisting guidelines on screening children less than 5 years of age for developmental delay vary. In this systematic review, we synthesized the literature on the effectiveness and harms of screening for developmental delay in asymptomatic children aged 1-4 years.

methodsWe searched MEDLINE, Embase and PsychINFO for relevant articles published to June 16, 2015. We identified studies that included children aged 1-4 years who were not at high risk of developmental delay, screened in a primary care setting. Randomized trials and controlled cohort studies were considered for benefits (cognitive, academic and functional outcomes); no restrictions on study design were imposed for the review of harms.

resultsTwo studies were included. One used the Ages and Stages Questionnaire II for screening and reported significantly more referrals to early intervention in the intervention groups than in the control group (relative risk [RR] 1.95, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.49-2.54, in the intervention group with office support and RR 1.71, 95% CI 1.30-2.25, in the intervention group without office support). The time to referral was 70% shorter in the intervention group with office support (rate ratio 0.30, 95% CI 0.19-0.48) and 64% shorter in the intervention group without office support (rate ratio 0.36, 95% CI 0.23-0.59), compared with the control group. The other study used the VroegTijdige Onderkenning Ontwikkelingsstoornissen Language Screening instrument to screen children aged 15 months at enrolment for language delay. It reported no differences between groups in academic performance outcomes at age 8 years.

interpretationThe evidence on screening for developmental delay in asymptomatic children aged 1-4 years is inconclusive. Further research with longer-term outcomes is needed to inform decisions about screening and screening intervals.

Identifiers

PMID27226967
PMCPMC4866933

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.