ArticlePediatric research2025
Global developmental delay: comparison of developmental profiles between gene-positive/suspicious positive and gene-negative cases.
Article in Pediatric research, 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.
- Intensive Family-Centered Rehabilitation and Motor Outcomes in a Child with Global Developmental Delay: A Case Report.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Profiling the developmental signatures of genetic global developmental delay.Pediatric research · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundGlobal developmental delay (GDD) is associated with genetic abnormalities; however, the specific clinical and developmental features that should trigger genetic testing remain unclear. In this study, we explored this issue.
methodsA total of 126 children with GDD were recruited for this study. Comprehensive medical histories and physical examination data were collected for all participants. The Chinese adaptation of the Griffiths Mental Development Scales was used to assess neurodevelopmental outcomes. Genetic variations were analyzed through trio-based whole exome sequencing and proband whole genome sequencing. A comparative analysis of the clinical characteristics was conducted between children with gene-positive/suspicious positive results (i.e., the mutation is deleterious or potentially deleterious, and the inheritance pattern and phenotype are matched) and those with negative results.
resultThe positive/suspicious positive rate of genes was 46.8%. The locomotor, performance, and general quotients were lower in the gene-positive/suspicious positive group than the gene-negative group (p < 0.05), and the lower the locomotor ability, the higher the gene positive/suspicious positive rate (p < 0.05).
conclusionChildren with GDD and genetic abnormalities exhibited poorer locomotor, performance, and general developmental quotients compared to those without genetic mutations. Furthermore, individuals with poorer locomotor ability should be prioritized for genetic testing. IMPACT: This study aimed to compare the clinical and developmental profiles of children with GDD who test positive or suspiciously positive for genetic abnormalities with those who test negative, and to identify key clinical features that may serve as indicators for genetic testing. It highlights that children with GDD and genetic abnormalities exhibited poorer locomotor, performance, and general developmental quotients compared to those without genetic mutations. Individuals with poorer locomotor ability should be prioritized for genetic testing. The findings supplement existing literature by providing insights to guide clinicians on determining which children with GDD should be considered for genetic testing.
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.