ReviewFrontiers in pediatrics2025
When to screen for developmental language disorder: a review of age-specific evidence.
Review in Frontiers in pediatrics, 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.
- Psychomotor development in children aged 12-23 months from communities in southern Ecuador: a descriptive research note.BMC research notes · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Developmental language disorder (DLD) is a heterogeneous condition with challenges in determining the optimal timing for screening. Despite the complexities of early language development, clinical decisions must still be made regarding when to identify children at risk. Recent literature has emphasized the need for the age-specific evaluation of screening precision. This review aims to identify the earliest age for acceptable predictive validity. A narrative synthesis of studies evaluating the validity of DLD screening tools or protocols was conducted, covering ages below 2-4 years. Screening before age 2 demonstrates insufficient sensitivity as a standalone screening point. By age 2.5, several tools achieve sensitivity and specificity above 70%-80%, meeting recommended thresholds. At age 3, screening shows adequate concurrent validity. Screening at age 4 is more aligned with diagnosis than early detection. Based on existing evidence, 2.5 years is the earliest age at which DLD screening tools begin to demonstrate acceptable predictive performance. The findings may inform clinical guidelines on DLD screening and highlight the need for further age-stratified studies to refine DLD screening strategies.
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.