Screening for developmental delay among children aged 1-4 years: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Existing guidelines on screening children less than 5 years of age for developmental delay vary. In this systematic review, we synthesized the literature on the effectiveness and harms of screening for developmental delay in asymptomatic children aged 1-4 years. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase and PsychINFO for relevant articles published to June 16, 2015. We identified studies that included children aged 1-4 years who were not at high risk of developmental delay, screened in a primary care setting. Randomized trials and controlled cohort studies were considered for benefits (cognitive, academic and functional outcomes); no restrictions on study design were imposed for the review of harms. RESULTS: Two studies were included. One used the Ages and Stages Questionnaire II for screening and reported significantly more referrals to early intervention in the intervention groups than in the control group (relative risk [RR] 1.95, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.49-2.54, in the intervention group with office support and RR 1.71, 95% CI 1.30-2.25, in the intervention group without office support). The time to referral was 70% shorter in the intervention group with office support (rate ratio 0.30, 95% CI 0.19-0.48) and 64% shorter in the intervention group without office support (rate ratio 0.36, 95% CI 0.23-0.59), compared with the control group. The other study used the VroegTijdige Onderkenning Ontwikkelingsstoornissen Language Screening instrument to screen children aged 15 months at enrolment for language delay. It reported no differences between groups in academic performance outcomes at age 8 years. INTERPRETATION: The evidence on screening for developmental delay in asymptomatic children aged 1-4 years is inconclusive. Further research with longer-term outcomes is needed to inform decisions about screening and screening intervals.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.057 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".