ArticlePediatric research2026
What comes next? Follow through care after genetic diagnosis in infancy.
Article in Pediatric research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundInfants with genetic diagnoses may experience medical complexity and developmental delays. Infant follow-up programs have proven benefits for preterm infants. We therefore evaluated the impact of this care model for neonates with genetic disorders.
methodsRetrospective observational cohort analysis of infants with genetic syndromes who received care in a multidisciplinary infant follow-up clinic from 2019 to 2024. Primary outcomes included establishment of developmental services following genetic diagnosis and unmet developmental supports at subsequent visits. Exposures included both clinical and socio-demographic features.
resultsThe 104 infants in this cohort had a median age at genetic diagnosis of 2 months chronologic age (IQR 0.56-7 months). At the first visit (median age 9, IQR 6-15 months chronologic age), 16 (15.4%) infants had not established early intervention (EI) services and 72/88 (81.8%) had unmet developmental needs. Infants from families with non-English primary language had decreased odds of receiving EI services (aOR = 0.73, p = 0.03). Through program involvement, unmet developmental support needs decreased over time (OR 0.93, p < 0.001).
conclusionsInfants with genetic diagnoses are not routinely receiving developmental supports after diagnosis. A structured approach to developmental support for this population is well positioned to address gaps in follow-through care, although ongoing evaluation of accessibility and scalability is needed. IMPACT: Neonates and infants with genetic diagnoses often experience medical and developmental complexity and have unmet support needs. Follow-up programs implemented to support infants following neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) discharge are beneficial to infants born preterm; however, the impact of extending this model of care to neonates with rare genetic disorders had not been thoroughly investigated. Specialized developmental support programs for infants diagnosed with rare genetic conditions have potential to improve follow-through care for this complex population.
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.