ArticleNeurology. Clinical practice2023
Current Practices in the Evaluation of Global Developmental Delay/Intellectual Disability: A Nationwide Survey of Child Neurologists.
Article in Neurology. Clinical practice, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Genetic Counselor Utilization Across Non-Genetics Departments for Neurodevelopmental Disorders.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2026Article
- Exploring serum GFAP and UCH-L1 levels in children with global developmental delay: associations with language impairment and widened extracerebral spaces.European child & adolescent psychiatry · 2026Article
- Erratum: Missing Full Disclosures.Neurology. Clinical practice · 2025Article
- Survey of the Landscape of Society Practice Guidelines for Genetic Testing of Neurodevelopmental Disorders.Annals of neurology · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Objectives: Global developmental delay/intellectual disability (GDD/ID) are among the most common neurologic conditions evaluated by child neurologists in the United States. No recent neurology-specific guidelines for GDD/ID diagnostic evaluation exist, which could lead to practice variability. We assessed current practices in GDD/ID diagnostic evaluation among US child neurologists, including drivers of exome sequencing (ES). Methods: A 19-item online anonymous survey was distributed between April 2021 and September 2021 to 953 eligible child neurologists by email and/or online platforms through the American Academy of Neurology and Child Neurology Society. Multinomial logistic regression was used to determine the predictors of sending ES as a part of GDD/ID diagnostic evaluation. Results: Of 172 unique respondents, 69.2% reported almost always obtaining a chromosomal microarray while 10.5% reported almost always pursuing ES. However, 65.1% identified ES as a first-tier diagnostic test for GDD/ID. Clinical practice demographics independently associated with a higher likelihood of pursuit of ES were more years of experience ( Discussion: Among US child neurologists, there is marked practice variability in GDD/ID diagnostic evaluation across multiple types of testing, raising concern for disparities in care. There is a widespread lack of screening for treatable causes of ID, which may lead to missed diagnoses and avoidable morbidity. Despite most respondents' support for ES as a first-tier diagnostic test for GDD/ID, only a small minority routinely pursue ES as a part of their evaluation. Provider-level factors (years of experience, percent of patients with GDD/ID) and system-level barriers (access to genetics expertise, lack of insurance coverage) were determinants of the frequency of use of ES. These findings suggest the need for updated consensus guidelines and advocacy/education to improve child neurologists' ability to pursue ES for GDD/ID.
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.