ArticleClinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil)2020
Sensitivity and specificity of a low-cost screening protocol for identifying children at risk for language disorders.
Article in Clinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 3 of them syntheses 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Diagnostic accuracy of parent reports for speech-language disorders in young children: a meta-analysis.Pediatric research · 2026Pooled it
- Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Screening Tools for Language Disorder.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2022Pooled it
- Screening tools for early identification of children with developmental delay in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review.BMJ open · 2020Pooled it
- Article
- A Study on the Screening of Children at Risk for Developmental Disabilities Using Facial Landmarks Derived From a Mobile-Based Application.Psychiatry investigation · 2024Article
- The home language environment in rural China: variations across family characteristics.BMC public health · 2023Article
- Agreement and Reliability of Parental Reports and Direct Screening of Developmental Outcomes in Toddlers at Risk.Frontiers in psychology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo compare the diagnostic accuracy of a low-cost screening test for identifying children at risk for language disorders with that of a specific language assessment.
methodsThe study was conducted during a polio vaccination campaign in basic health units in western São Paulo, Brazil. The parents/guardians of 1000 children aged between 0 and 5 years were asked to answer questions of a specific screening test. The instrument consisted of a uniform set of questions about the main milestones in language development (from 0 to 5 years of age) with scaled scores to assess responses. There were no exclusion criteria. After the screening test, the children were referred to a specific language assessment by ABFW, following a determined flow of referrals. The results obtained in the screening were compared to those obtained in the specific language assessment; then, the sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and positive and negative predictive values were determined for the screening test. Children who failed the screening test also underwent an audiological evaluation. The statistical significance was set at 5%.
resultsThe majority of the participants were aged between 4 and 5 years (21.82%) and were male (51.6%). The sensitivity and specificity values were 82.5% and 98.93%, respectively. The area under the curve was 0.907 (0.887-0.925), and the screening test showed 96% accuracy.
conclusionsThe screening test showed high diagnostic efficiency in determining the risk of language disorders in children aged between 0 and 5 years.
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.