ArticlePloS one2025
Screening for developmental delay at 18 months using the Infant Toddler Checklist: A validation study.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Determinants of Language Development in 18-Month-Old Children within Primary Healthcare Settings.Journal of primary care & community healthArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe Infant Toddler Checklist (ITC) may be promising as a single tool at the 18-month visit to detect a range of developmental concerns. We examined the predictive validity of the ITC; and the association between positive ITC screening and health care utilization (HCU).
methodsProspective cohort study of children at average-risk for developmental delay attending their 18-month visit in primary care in Toronto, Canada. Parents completed the ITC. HCU from the single-payer provincial health system was collected from health administrative databases ensuring complete follow-up. Physician billing code for a neurodevelopmental consultation was the primary outcome and criterion measure. Six other HCU types were assessed.
resultsOf 1460 children with a mean age at screening of 18 months, 11% screened ITC positive. Mean age at follow-up was 8 years, 2.6% had a neurodevelopmental consultation. Screening test properties (with neurodevelopmental consultation as the criterion measure): 40% sensitivity (95% CI 24%, 57%), 90% specificity (95% CI 88%, 91%), 10% false positive rate (95% CI 9%, 12%). Using multivariable negative binomial regression, a positive ITC was associated with higher rates of 6 of 7 HCU types, including neurodevelopmental consultation (aRR 2.78, 95% CI 1.37, 5.67, p = 0.005).
conclusionThe ITC had high specificity and a low false positive rate, suggesting that most children with a negative ITC will not have a later neurodevelopmental consultation, and use of the tool may minimize unintended harms such as anxiety and resource use. The low sensitivity highlights the importance of ongoing developmental surveillance. Low sensitivity of other screening tools is discussed.
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.