SynthesisBMJ global health2025
Neurodevelopmental screening for neonates less than 44 weeks gestation in low-income and middle-income countries: a systematic review.
Synthesis in BMJ global health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Validation of neurodevelopmental assessments for early detection of high-risk infants in Zimbabwe: protocol for the Child Development Observation study (ChiDO study).BMJ paediatrics open · 2026Article
- Prenatal maternal selenium plasma concentration and motor development in early infancy.The British journal of nutrition · 2026Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
introductionWith global improvements in neonatal survival, more small and sick newborns in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) are at increased risk of neurodevelopmental disability and delay. While there is increased recognition of the importance of early identification of neurodevelopmental differences and timely initiation of therapy, little is known about standardised neonatal neurodevelopmental screening tools in these settings.
methodsWe performed a systematic review to determine what standardised neurodevelopmental assessments had been used in LMICs for neonates before 44 weeks corrected gestational age and published in the literature. We excluded short-term clinical assessments designed for specific pathologies. We performed the search across seven databases, screened studies for eligibility and inclusion and extracted bibliographic data, country, patient characteristics, assessments and study aims. Results were summarised in tabular and graphical presentation.
resultsThere were 2477 records screened, yielding 67 studies for inclusion. Studies in Asian countries made up 65.7%, while Latin America and Africa made up 19.4% and 16.4%, respectively. Physicians and paramedical staff performed the screening assessments in only 16.4% of studies, and 92.5% of studies used inpatient recruitment. The Neonatal Behavioural Neurological Assessment (25.4%) was the most frequently used screening tool followed by the General Movements Assessment (22.4%), the Hammersmith Neonatal Neurological Examination/Dubowitz (16.4%) and the Neonatal Behavioural Assessment Scale (10.4%).
conclusionsWe did not identify any one neonatal neurodevelopmental screening assessment that is rapid, globally validated, identifies targets for intervention, has high predictive prognostic value and does not require neonatal or kinesiologic expertise or uncommon equipment. Such an assessment, in concert with evidence-based intervention, therapeutic delivery platforms, established referral pathways and trained personnel would improve functional outcomes for high-risk small and sick neonates in LMICs.
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.