Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29054862›Full record

ReviewArchives of disease in childhood2017

Current evidence-based recommendations on investigating children with global developmental delay.

Renuka Mithyantha, Rachel Kneen, Emma McCann, Melissa Gladstone

Registry-linked trialAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Archives of disease in childhood, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05392296 (Effects of Power Ball on Grip Strength in Children With Developmental Delay.), which is not on this map. Cited by 70 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
70citing 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.

NCT05392296 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2022, after this paper: background citation

Effects of Power Ball on Grip Strength in Children With Developmental Delay.

TypeinterventionalSponsorRiphah International UniversityRan2022 to 2022Enrolled28ConditionsDevelopmental DelayArmsPower ball, isometric hand grip strengthening exercises
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Neurodegenerative Diseases in Children: A Comprehensive Review.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026
    Review
  6. Observational
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Trajectories of psychotic-like experiences in youth and associations with lifestyle factors.Journal of child psychology and psychiatry, and allied disciplines · 2026
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Observational
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

10 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

4 authors.

Renuka MithyanthaDepartment of Developmental Paediatrics, Alder Hey Children's NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool, UK.
Rachel KneenDepartment of Paediatric Neurology, Alder Hey Children's NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool, UK.
Emma McCannDepartment of Clinical Genetics, Liverpool Women's Hospital, Liverpool, UK.
Melissa GladstoneDepartment of Developmental Paediatrics, Alder Hey Children's NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-2579-9301

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionGlobal developmental delay (GDD) affects 1%-3% of the population of children under 5 years of age, making it one of the most common conditions presenting in paediatric clinics; causes are exogenous, genetic (non-metabolic) or genetic (metabolic). Recent advances in biotechnology and genetic testing mean that the investigations available to perform for children under 5 years are increasing and are more sensitive than previously. This change in availability and type of testing necessitates an update in the recommendations for investigating GDD.

methodsWe conducted a review of the literature from 2006 to 2016 to identify articles with evidence relating to the investigation of developmental delay in children under the age of 5 years. We collated the evidence into first-line and second-line investigations and, where available, on their yield and cost implications.

resultsWe have provided up-to-date guidance for first-line and second-line investigations for children with GDD under the age of 5 years. Recent evidence demonstrates that genetic testing for all children with unexplained GDD should be first line, if an exogenous cause is not already established. Our review of the literature demonstrates that all patients, irrespective of severity of GDD, should have investigations for treatable conditions. Evidence demonstrates that the yield for treatable conditions is higher than previously thought and that investigations for these metabolic conditions should be considered as first line. Additional second-line investigations can be led by history, examination and developmental trajectories. DISCUSSION: We may need to update present recommendations in the UK for investigation of developmental delay. This would include microarray testing as first line and a more thorough approach to investigations for metabolic disorders that can be treated. Clinical assessment remains vital for guiding investigations.

Indexed as

ChildChild, PreschoolDevelopmental DisabilitiesEvidence-Based MedicineFemaleGenetic TestingHumansInfantMalegeneticsneurodevelopmentneurodisability

Identifiers

PMID29054862
PMCPMC5738593

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

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.