ArticleDevelopmental medicine and child neurology2026
Predicting neurodevelopmental outcomes in Australian First Nations infants: The transdiagnostic utility of early screening tools.
Article in Developmental medicine and child neurology, 2026. 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.
- Integrating transdiagnostic and holistic approaches in early neurodevelopmental screening.Developmental medicine and child neurology · 2026Article
- Predicting neurodevelopmental outcomes in Australian First Nations infants: The transdiagnostic utility of early screening tools.Developmental medicine and child neurology · 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimTo determine the predictive relationship between evidence-based screening tools and neurodevelopmental outcomes in Australian First Nations infants.
methodThis prospective cohort study invited First Nations families to participate in a culturally adapted early developmental screening programme. A total of 156 infants (55.1% male, mean gestational age = 33.6 weeks, SD = 4.6) were screened using the Prechtl's General Movements Assessment, with optimality scoring using the Motor Optimality Score-Revised (MOS-R) at 3 to 5 months and the Hammersmith Infant Neurological Examination (HINE) at 4 to 9 months. Participants completed 'baby movement (BM) checks' at two time points (BM1, 3-5 months corrected age; BM2, 4-9 months corrected age), with final movement and learning checks at 12 months corrected age. At 12 months corrected age, standardized motor, cognitive, and communication assessments, neurodisability-specific symptomology, or a diagnosis made by a paediatrician classified infants as developing typically ('on track') or (1) with a high chance of or confirmed cerebral palsy (CP) or (2) non-CP neurodevelopmental delay (NDD), including autism and fetal alcohol spectrum disorder (FASD). Predictive relationships were investigated using logistic regression and diagnostic statistics.
resultsAt 12 months, 127 of 147 (86%) eligible infants (n = 9 withdrawn or deceased) were classified as 'on track' (n = 55, 43%), NDD (n = 59, 47%), or CP (n = 13, 10%). MOS-R (≥ 14 weeks) and the HINE distinguished infants as 'on track', CP, or NDD. [Correction added on 1 November 2025 after first online publication: In the preceding sentence, "MOS-R (≥ 14 weeks). The HINE distinguished infants…" has been updated to "MOS-R (≥ 14 weeks) and the HINE distinguished infants…".] Each 1-point decrease on both tools increased the odds of NDD (OR
interpretationEvidence-based screening tools demonstrate promising transdiagnostic prediction of 'on-track' development and not only high chance of CP but also autism, FASD, and other NDDs.
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.