ReviewFrontiers in neurology2025
Efficacy analysis of comprehensive rehabilitation therapy based on the Gesell developmental schedules among infants with global developmental delay of different ages: a retrospective study.
Review in Frontiers in neurology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Identification and growth features of developmental delay with macrocephaly caused by a novel TRIO variant affecting the second SH3 domain.BMC medical genomics · 2026Article
- Brain network characteristics and behavioral correlations in global developmental delay based on functional near-infrared spectroscopy.iScience · 2026Article
- Genotype-phenotypic correlation in a Chinese patient with isolated lissencephaly sequence caused by 17p13.3p13.2 chromosomal microdeletion: a 6-year follow-up study.Frontiers in genetics · 2026Article
- MiR-181a, IL-6, and TNF-α: Biomarkers for Diagnosis and Long-Term Neurodevelopmental Prognosis in Neonatal Sepsis.Infection and drug resistance · 2026Article
- Effectiveness of Early Intervention Programs for Young Children with Global Developmental Delay: A Systematic Review :.Galen medical journal · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This study aimed to analyze differences in efficacy using the Gesell Developmental Schedules (GDS) among infant patients with global developmental delay (GDD), thereby providing an objective basis for early intervention. Methods: A retrospective analysis was performed of 155 infants with GDD who were first diagnosed and admitted to the neurorehabilitation department of our hospital between January 2022 and December 2024. The data collected included general information, maternal pregnancy and perinatal data, and GDS results of the patients. The patients were divided according to their age into 3-6, 7-12, and 13-18-month groups. All patients received at least 3 months of comprehensive rehabilitation therapy, and the GDS was used to assess pre- and post-treatment efficacy. Results: According to the logistic regression analysis, age at initial diagnosis, prematurity, and neonatal asphyxia were identified as risk factors for poor prognosis (OR > 1, Conclusion: Comprehensive rehabilitation interventions showed significant efficacy in infants aged 3-6 months.
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.