ArticleBMJ public health2026
Identifying developmental vulnerability through linear growth screening: a UK cross-sectional study.
Article in BMJ public health, 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Linear growth in early childhood is routinely measured in the UK, but it is unclear whether indicators of linear growth faltering can flag children with neurodevelopmental vulnerability, especially in ethnically diverse urban settings. We tested whether short stature (stunting) or being short for genetic potential identifies children at risk of failing routine developmental screening at age 2-2.5 years. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional analysis among 555 children aged 24-30 months (mean 26.0 months, SD 1.5) attending Healthy Child Programme reviews in East London. The sample was ethnically diverse, with substantial proportions of Bangladeshi, White and other minority ethnic groups. Developmental vulnerability was defined as scoring below the Ages and Stages Questionnaire, Third Edition (ASQ-3) cut-off in ≥1 domain. The exposures were stunting (height-for-age z score <-2 SD) and being short for genetic potential, defined as deviation from mid-parental height (DMPH) <-2 SD. Associations were examined using binomial multivariable logistic regression adjusted for age, sex, prematurity, maternal education, ethnicity and household benefits. A subset (n=94) completed the Griffiths III Mental Development Scales (GMDS-III) to validate ASQ-3 classification. Results: Overall, 141/555 (25.4%) children screened positive for developmental vulnerability on the ASQ-3. Children with developmental vulnerability had significantly lower GMDS-III scaled scores across multiple domains supporting criterion validity. We did not find evidence of an association between stunting and developmental vulnerability (adjusted OR 1.35, 95% CI 0.47 to 3.49). In contrast, children who were short for genetic potential (DMPH <-2 SD) had higher odds of developmental vulnerability (adjusted OR 4.18, 95% CI 1.13 to 14.78). Conclusions: In this urban UK cohort, deviation from genetic height potential, rather than stunting, identified children at increased risk of developmental vulnerability. Incorporating parental heights into routine growth surveillance could offer a simple trigger for earlier neurodevelopmental review.
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.