ArticleRevista da Escola de Enfermagem da U S P2022
Clinical validation of the nursing diagnosis "Risk for delayed child development".
Article in Revista da Escola de Enfermagem da U S P, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo validate clinically the risk factors of the nursing diagnosis "Risk for delayed child development".
methodCross-sectional quantitative study carried out in a specialty outpatient clinic and in family health units with 124 children. The data was collected through interviews with the children's guardians to investigate the risk factors for delay in child development.
resultsThe tested risk factors affected 108 of the evaluated children (87.1%). In the accuracy tests, most specificity values were above 80% and sensitivity values were lower than 30%. Most risk factors had odds ratio >1, three of which were noteworthy: genetic disorder (OR = 38, p < 0.05) and congenital disorder (OR = 4.4, p < 0.05), among child-related aspects, and impaired cognitive development in parents (OR = 27, p < 0.05), among caregiver-related aspects.
conclusionThe study contributed to a refined diagnostic accuracy, identifying potential associated factors of the evaluated diagnosis.
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.