Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29459217›Full record

ArticleDisability and health journal2018

Better together: Developmental screening and monitoring best identify children who need early intervention.

Brian Barger, Catherine Rice, Rebecca Wolf, Andrew Roach

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Disability and health journal, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing 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

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

  1. Developmental Screening Tools Used with First Nations Populations: A Systematic Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Pediatric clinicians' perspectives on assessing concerns about young children's social-emotional wellbeing in primary care.Journal of child health care : for professionals working with children in the hospital and community · 2024
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Development of Parent Guidelines for Parent-Performed Developmental Screening Tests.Journal of the Korean Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry · 2023
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

4 authors.

Brian BargerUSC, DRDC Policy Research Fellow at National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, USA; Center for Leadership in Disability, Georgia State University, School of Public Health, Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Atlanta, GA, USA. Electronic address: bbarger1@gsu.edu.
Catherine RiceLearn the Signs. Act Early., National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, USA; Emory Autism Center, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Rebecca WolfLearn the Signs. Act Early., National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Andrew RoachCenter for Leadership in Disability, Georgia State University, School of Public Health, Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Atlanta, GA, USA.

Funding

Intramural CDC HHS CC999999
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWidely recommended developmental surveillance methods include developmental monitoring (DM) and development screening (DS). Much research has been done on DS, but very little research has compared the effectiveness of DM and DS together.

objectivesTo investigate the relationship between DM and DS in Part C early intervention (EI) service receipt.

methodsAuthors used data from the 2007/2008 and 2011/2012 National Survey of Children's Health (NSCH). Authors report the prevalence of children aged 10 months to 3 years who received (a) DM only, (b) DS only, (c) both DM and DS, and (c) no DM or DS across survey years. Authors compare the odds of EI receipt across these groups.

resultsDuring both periods, estimated EI receipt prevalence was higher for children receiving both DM and DS (8.38% in 2007/2008; 6.47% in 2011/2012) compared to children receiving no DM or DS (1.31% in 2007/2008; 1.92% in 2011/2012), DM alone (2.74% in 2007/2008; 2.70% in 2011/2012), or DS alone (3.59% in 2007/2008; 3.09% in 2011/2012) (for both time frames, p < .05). From 2007/2008 to 2011/2012, the proportion of children receiving DS only and both DM and DS increased, while children receiving DM only and no DM or DS decreased.

conclusionsChildren receiving DM and DS together were more likely to receive EI compared to children receiving DM alone, DS alone, or neither DM nor DS. These findings support the AAP recommendations indicating that DM and DS are complementary strategies for improving early identification and linkage to EI for young children.

Indexed as

Child HealthChildren with DisabilitiesDisability EvaluationEarly Intervention, EducationalChild, PreschoolDevelopmental DisabilitiesFemaleHumansInfantMaleMass ScreeningSurveys and QuestionnairesBright futuresChild findDevelopmental epidemiologyDevelopmental monitoringDevelopmental screeningDevelopmental surveillanceEarly interventionIndividuals with disabilities education actPart C

Identifiers

PMID29459217
PMCPMC6005750

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.