ArticleBMJ paediatrics open2025
Scoping review of evidence-based practice guidelines for the evaluation and care of young children with developmental disabilities in LMIC settings: evidence for action.
Article in BMJ paediatrics open, 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.
- Disability-inclusive reproductive healthcare: A reproductive health education intervention for caregivers of girls with cerebral palsy in India.Public health in practice (Oxford, England) · 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionChildhood disability is increasingly prevalent, particularly in low-income and middle-income countries, as more children survive worldwide. Global practice guidelines are essential to address the need for timely identification, evaluation and management of children with developmental disabilities, particularly in resource-limited settings. This scoping review aims to summarise recent evidence-based practice guidelines for the assessment and care of children aged 0-5 years at risk or with developmental disabilities and identify those practice guidelines that are suitable for use across both global and resource-limited settings.
methodsWe searched PubMed, Scopus, CINAHL as well as websites for professional associations using Google to identify evidence-based practice guidelines for specific developmental disabilities with established global prevalence estimates. We identified additional literature through snowballing. Practice guidelines were included if they were published between September 2012 and June 2024, were in English, and demonstrated a systematic process of reviewing available evidence, which then provided information on the detection, diagnosis, treatment and management of children under five with developmental disabilities. Three reviewers independently screened results by title, abstract and full text. Study characteristics and outcome data were extracted, and results were narratively synthesised.
results43 practice guidelines met the eligibility search criteria. Few evidence-based practice guidelines were generated from resource-limited settings (n=3, 7.0%). Of these, two were published in Malaysia and one from Cameroon. Most of the practice guidelines focused on both assessment and management (n=20, 46.5%), with some addressing only assessment (n=9, 20.9%) or management of the conditions (n=14, 32.6%).
conclusionsPractice guidelines focusing on the identification and support of children with developmental disabilities, chiefly published within high-income settings, are available to be selectively adapted and utilised across similar localities globally. All young children with developmental disabilities worldwide have the right to access equitable, timely and quality health and developmental care services.
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.