ArticleCMAJ open
Screening for developmental delay among children aged 1-4 years: a systematic review.
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.
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
16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Screening tools for early identification of children with developmental delay in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review.BMJ open · 2020Pooled it
- The lasting influence of parenting intervention on child behavior: findings from a randomized clinical trial using care for child development guidelines.BMC pediatrics · 2024Trial
- Sensitivity and Specificity of Developmental Surveillance and Autism Screening in an Australian Multicultural Cohort: The Watch Me Grow Study.Journal of autism and developmental disorders · 2026Article
- 2021 Clinical Practice Guidelines on Periodic Health Examination.Acta medica Philippina · 2026Article
- Bridging medicine and education for global developmental delay: a cluster sampling study on screening, diagnosis, and intervention in preschool children.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Developmental screening at 18 months using the Nipissing District Developmental Screen.Paediatrics & child health · 2025Article
- Standardization of a Developmental Milestone Scale Using Data From Children in Israel.JAMA network open · 2022Article
- Article
- 2020 edition of the Rourke Baby Record: What is new in preventive care of children up to 5 years of age?Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien · 2021Article
- A Prediction Model for Detecting Developmental Disabilities in Preschool-Age Children Through Digital Biomarker-Driven Deep Learning in Serious Games: Development Study.JMIR serious games · 2021Article
- Sensitivity and specificity of a low-cost screening protocol for identifying children at risk for language disorders.Clinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil) · 2020Article
- Article
- Using the ages and stages questionnaire in the general population as a measure for identifying children not at risk of a neurodevelopmental disorder.BMC pediatrics · 2018Article
- 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 · 2017Article
- Recommendations on screening for developmental delay.CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2016Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.