Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39816889›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in child and adolescent psychiatry2023

Developmental screening tools for identification of children with developmental difficulties in high-income countries: a systematic review.

Sara Cibralic, Patrick Hawker, Ferosa Khan, Abbie Lucien, Antonio Mendoza Diaz, Susan Woolfenden, Elisabeth Murphy, April Deering, Clare Schnelle, Sharnee Townsend and 1 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in child and adolescent psychiatry, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. A Systematic Review of Neurodevelopmental Tools for Preterm Infants During Infancy: Mapping the Components Across Infant Age Quarters.Indian journal of community medicine : official publication of Indian Association of Preventive & Social Medicine · 2025
    Review
  7. 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

11 authors.

Sara CibralicIngham Institute, Liverpool, NSW, Australia.
Patrick HawkerPsychiatry and Mental Health, School of Clinical Medicine, University of New South Wales, Randwick, NSW, Australia.
Ferosa KhanPsychiatry and Mental Health, School of Clinical Medicine, University of New South Wales, Randwick, NSW, Australia.
Abbie LucienPsychiatry and Mental Health, School of Clinical Medicine, University of New South Wales, Randwick, NSW, Australia.
Antonio Mendoza DiazPsychiatry and Mental Health, School of Clinical Medicine, University of New South Wales, Randwick, NSW, Australia.
Susan WoolfendenIngham Institute, Liverpool, NSW, Australia.
Elisabeth MurphyNew South Wales Ministry of Health, St Leonards, NSW, Australia.
April DeeringNew South Wales Ministry of Health, St Leonards, NSW, Australia.
Clare SchnelleNew South Wales Ministry of Health, St Leonards, NSW, Australia.
Sharnee TownsendNew South Wales Ministry of Health, St Leonards, NSW, Australia.
Valsamma EapenIngham Institute, Liverpool, NSW, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: To examine and synthesize the literature on the use of universal developmental screening and surveillance tools in high-income countries in relation to (1) psychometric properties; (2) knowledge, acceptability, and feasibility of tools; and (3) follow-up taken following screening/surveillance. Method: A PRISMA-compliant systematic review was performed in the PsychInfo, PubMed, and Embase databases. Studies published in the English language were included if they reported results evaluating a universal developmental screening or surveillance measurement tool. Articles on service providers' and/or parents' views on developmental screening were also included. Two independent reviewers extracted data and assessed for risk of bias using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool and the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies Tool. Results were synthesized qualitatively. Results: Initial searches identified 2,078 articles, of which 52 were included in the final review. Findings showed that several articles assessing the accuracy of screening tools have been published, and together, they suggest that the accuracy of screening tools varies across cultures and countries. Furthermore, available literature indicated that administering universal developmental screening tools was feasible and acceptable, though only a small number of studies are available. Results also showed a limited number of studies looking at actions taken following positive screening results. Conclusion: As the evidence stands, more research assessing the acceptability, feasibility, and accuracy of developmental screeners, is needed. Systematic review registration: This review has been registered with the University of York Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (PROSPERO; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=337320, registration number CRD42022337320).

Indexed as

developmental screeningdevelopmental surveillancehigh-income countriesreviewtoolsyoung children

Identifiers

PMID39816889
PMCPMC11732054

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.