MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4393443492 · doi:10.3389/fpubh.2024.1301524

Prevalence and determinants of developmental delay among children in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2024· review· en· W4393443492 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Tesfaye Wondmagegn, Bekahegn Girma, Yosef Habtemariam

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Public Health · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInfant Development and Preterm Care
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMeta-analysisPsycINFOOdds ratioConfidence intervalPublication biasMedicineSystematic reviewDemographyPublic healthGlobal healthMEDLINEBiologyInternal medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Developmental delay is a public health problem in low- and middle-income countries. However, there is no summarized evidence in low- and middle-income countries on developmental delay, and primary studies on this issue show varied and inconclusive results. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess the pooled magnitude of confirmed developmental delay and its determinants among children in low- and middle-income countries. Methods We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines to write this systematic review and meta-analysis. Primary studies were searched from PubMed, PsycINFO, Hinari, Science Direct, African Journal of Online, Web of Science, and Google Scholar databases. The Newcastle–Ottawa Scale, adapted for the cross-sectional studies, was used to assess the quality of the included studies. Heterogeneity and publication bias were assessed by the I 2 and Eggers tests, respectively. Due to the high heterogeneity, the random effects model was used for analysis. Odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used to show the association between developmental delay and its determinants. Results The pooled prevalence of confirmed developmental delay was 18.83, 95% CI (15.53–22.12). In the subgroup analysis, a high prevalence of developmental delay [26.69% (95% CI, 15.78–37.60)] was observed in studies performed in Africa. Maternal education [3.04; 95% CI (2.05, 4.52)] and low birth weight [3.61; 95% CI (1.72, 7.57)] were significant determinants of developmental delay. Conclusion The pooled prevalence of developmental delay in low- and middle-income countries was high as compared to that in high-income countries. Maternal education level and weight at birth were significantly associated with developmental delays. Therefore, strategies should be designed to decrease the rate of low birth weight and the number of illiterate mothers living in low- and middle-income countries. Systematic review registration PROSPERO, CRD42024513060.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.301
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.048
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.281 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations16
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Public HealthSame topicInfant Development and Preterm CareFrench-language works237,207