ArticleIndian journal of pediatrics2026
Development and Validation of Puberty Interpreter, a Mobile Clinical Decision-Support Tool for Pubertal Disorders.
Article in Indian journal of pediatrics, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo develop and validate Puberty Interpreter, a mobile application-based point-of-care clinical decision support tool for pubertal disorders.
methodsPuberty Interpreter recommendations in 306 children with puberty concerns (199 early and 107 delayed puberty) were compared to the gold standard, a pediatrician, a senior trainee, and a junior trainee.
resultsPuberty Interpreter concordance with the gold standard was 303/306 (99.0%) for diagnosis, 303/306 (99.0%) for management, and 606/612 (99.0%) overall. This was higher than the pediatrician (476/612, 77.8%), the senior trainee (330/612, 53.9%), and the junior trainee (305/612, 49.8%). The relative risk of error compared with the Puberty Interpreter was 21 for the pediatrician (95% CI 6.7-66), 41 for the senior trainee (95% CI 13-127), and 44 for the junior trainee (95% CI 14-136). Agreement beyond chance for management was highest for the application (κ = 0.978; overall agreement 0.990) and lowest for the junior trainee (κ = 0.233; overall agreement 0.683). Adopting the Puberty Interpreter outputs would have reduced diagnostic discordance by 96 cases (96.9%) for the pediatrician, 197 (98.5%) for the senior trainee, and 212 (98.6%) for the junior trainee. Estimated economic benefit of adhering to Puberty Interpreter guidance was ₹56,700 for the pediatrician ($683; ₹185 [$2.2] per case), ₹236,250 for the senior trainee ($2,846; ₹772 [$9.3] per case), and ₹220,500 for the junior trainee ($2,657; ₹721 [$8.7] per case).
conclusionsThe Puberty Interpreter delivers accurate guidance, substantially reducing both over- and under-investigation compared to pediatricians and trainees. These findings support implementation and multi-center prospective evaluation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42258039What 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.