ArticleBMC pediatrics2019
Risk-based approach to school entry examinations in Germany - a validation study.
Article in BMC pediatrics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Validating the Predictions of a Dynamic Transmission Model Using Real-World Data from a Universal Varicella Vaccination Program in Germany.Journal of market access & health policy · 2025Article
- Segregated by Wealth, Health, and Development: An Analysis of Pre-School Child Health in a Medium-Sized German City.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Parent, teacher, and nurse concerns and school doctor actions: an observational study of general health checks.BMJ open · 2022Observational
- Associations between study questionnaire-assessed need and school doctor-evaluated benefit of routine health checks: an observational study.BMC pediatrics · 2021Observational
- Health-Related Disparities among Migrant Children at School Entry in Germany. How does the Definition of Migration Status Matter?International journal of environmental research and public health · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn Germany, all preschoolers undergo a school entry examination (SEE). While most children are sufficiently served with standardized developmental tests only, for a small group of otherwise underserved children, the SEE should also include a subsidiary health checkup. The aim of the study was to validate selection criteria to differentiate these two groups of children.
methodsSecondary data from the SEEs of 2016 and 2017 that contained information on 3513 children were analyzed. Of these children, a subset was selected in which no severe developmental disorders were diagnosed prior to the SEE (n = 2744). The selection criteria identified in an earlier study (low or medium social status, missed the last pediatric routine check-up, migration background, three or more siblings, and raised by a single mother) were then applied to this subset to estimate their effectiveness in finding children at risk for a newly diagnosed severe developmental disorder. The sensitivity, specificity and positive and negative predictive values of the selection criteria were calculated.
resultsThe tested selection criteria identified children who would likely benefit from a subsidiary checkup in the context of SEEs with a sensitivity of 96% (95% CI: 94.5-98.9%). The negative predictive value and specificity of the criteria were 99% (98.6-99.7%) and 34% (32.1-35.8%), respectively. By using this approach, the number of children seen by a physician could be reduced to 53% of the age cohorts.
conclusionThe tested selection criteria are a viable way to differentiate children for whom SEEs should include a subsidiary health checkup from those who do not need it. Therefore, the time that physicians spend with SEEs could be reduced. Using the selection criteria to establish a stepped procedure in SEEs therefore offers a valid way to focus physicians' resources on the children who need them most.
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.