Dataset Information

Diagnostic accuracy of developmental screening in primary care at the 18-month health supervision visit: a cross-sectional study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Communication delays are often the first presenting problem in infants with a range of developmental disabilities. Our objective was to assess the validity of the 18-month Nipissing District Developmental Screen compared with the Infant Toddler Checklist, a validated tool for detecting expressive language and other communication delays.

Methods

A cross-sectional design was used. Children aged 18-20 months were recruited during scheduled health supervision visits. Parents completed both the 18-month Nipissing District Developmental Screen and the Infant Toddler Checklist. We assessed criterion validity (diagnostic test properties, overall agreement) for 1 or more "no" responses (1+NDDS flag) and 2 or more "no" responses (2+NDDS flag) using the Infant Toddler Checklist as a criterion measure.

Results

The study included 348 children (mean age 18.6 ± 0.7 mo). The 1+NDDS flag had good sensitivity (94%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 70%-100%, and 86%, 95% CI 64%-96%), poor specificity (63%, 95% CI 58%-68%, and 63%, 95% CI 58%-69%), and fair agreement (0.26) to identify expressive speech and other communication delays, respectively. The 2+NDDS flag had low to fair sensitivity (50%, 95% CI 26%-74%, and 73%, 95% CI 50%-88%), good specificity (86%, 95% CI 82%-90%, and 88%, 95% CI 84%-92%) and moderate agreement (0.45) to identify expressive speech and other communication delays, respectively.

Interpretation

The low specificity of the 1+NDDS flag may lead to overdiagnosis, and the low sensitivity of the 2+NDDS flag may lead to underdiagnosis, suggesting that infants who could benefit from early intervention may not be identified. The Nipissing District Developmental Screen does not have adequate characteristics to accurately identify children with a range of communication delays.

SUBMITTER: van den Heuvel M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5173485 | biostudies-literature | 2016 Oct-Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Diagnostic accuracy of developmental screening in primary care at the 18-month health supervision visit: a cross-sectional study.

van den Heuvel Meta M Borkhoff Cornelia M CM Koroshegyi Christine C Zabih Weeda W Reijneveld Sijmen A SA Maguire Jonathon J Birken Catherine C Parkin Patricia P

CMAJ open 20161019 4

<h4>Background</h4>Communication delays are often the first presenting problem in infants with a range of developmental disabilities. Our objective was to assess the validity of the 18-month Nipissing District Developmental Screen compared with the Infant Toddler Checklist, a validated tool for detecting expressive language and other communication delays.<h4>Methods</h4>A cross-sectional design was used. Children aged 18-20 months were recruited during scheduled health supervision visits. Parent ...[more]

PMID: 28018875

Similar Datasets

Project description:Objective There is international variation in recommendations regarding developmental screening and growing recognition of the low sensitivity of commonly used developmental screening tools. Our objective was to examine the predictive validity of the Infant Toddler Checklist (ITC) at 18 months to predict a developmental diagnosis at 3–5 years, in a primary care setting. Methods We designed a prospective cohort study, recruiting in primary care in Toronto, Canada. Parents completed the ITC at the 18-month visit and reported developmental diagnosis at 3–5 years (developmental delay, autism spectrum disorder (ASD), attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), learning problem). We calculated screening test properties with 95% CIs. We used multivariable logistic regression analyses adjusted for important covariates. Results In the final sample (n=488), mean age at screening was 18.5 (SD 1.1) months, and at follow-up was 46.6 (SD 10.0) months. At screening, 46 (9.4%) had a positive ITC. At follow-up, 26 (5.3%) had a developmental diagnosis, including: developmental delay (n=22), ASD (n=4), ADHD (n=1), learning problem (n=1); parents of two children each reported two diagnoses (total of 28 diagnoses). Of four children with a diagnosis of ASD at follow-up, three had a positive ITC at 18 months. The ITC specificity (92%, 95% CI: 89% to 94%) and negative predictive value (96%, 95% CI: 95% to 97%) were high; false positive rate was low (8%, 95% CI: 6% to 11%); sensitivity was low (31%, 95% CI: 14% to 52%). There was a strong association between a positive ITC at 18 months and later developmental diagnosis (adjusted OR 4.48, 95% CI: 1.72 to 11.64; p=0.002). Conclusion The ITC had high specificity, high negative predictive value, low false positive rate, and identified children with later developmental delay and ASD. The ITC had low sensitivity, similar to other screening tools underscoring the importance of continuous developmental surveillance at all health supervision visits.

Project description:ImportanceUniversal developmental screening is widely recommended, yet studies of the accuracy of commonly used questionnaires reveal mixed results, and previous comparisons of these questionnaires are hampered by important methodological differences across studies.ObjectiveTo compare the accuracy of 3 developmental screening instruments as standardized tests of developmental status.Design, setting, and participantsThis cross-sectional diagnostic accuracy study recruited consecutive parents in waiting rooms at 10 pediatric primary care offices in eastern Massachusetts between October 1, 2013, and January 31, 2017. Parents were included if they were sufficiently literate in the English or Spanish language to complete a packet of screening questionnaires and if their child was of eligible age. Parents completed all questionnaires in counterbalanced order. Participants who screened positive on any questionnaire plus 10% of those who screened negative on all questionnaires (chosen at random) were invited to complete developmental testing. Analyses were weighted for sampling and nonresponse and were conducted from October 1, 2013, to January 31, 2017.ExposuresThe 3 screening instruments used were the Ages & Stages Questionnaire, Third Edition (ASQ-3); Parents' Evaluation of Developmental Status (PEDS); and Survey of Well-being of Young Children (SWYC): Milestones.Main outcomes and measuresReference tests administered were Bayley Scales of Infant and Toddler Development, Third Edition, for children aged 0 to 42 months, and Differential Ability Scales, Second Edition, for older children. Age-standardized scores were used as indicators of mild (80-89), moderate (70-79), or severe (<70) delays.ResultsA total of 1495 families of children aged 9 months to 5.5 years participated. The mean (SD) age of the children at enrollment was 2.6 (1.3) years, and 779 (52.1%) were male. Parent respondents were primarily female (1325 [88.7%]), with a mean (SD) age of 33.4 (6.3) years. Of the 20.5% to 29.0% of children with a positive score on each questionnaire, 35% to 60% also received a positive score on a second questionnaire, demonstrating moderate co-occurrence. Among younger children (<42 months), the specificity of the ASQ-3 (89.4%; 95% CI, 85.9%-92.1%) and SWYC Milestones (89.0%; 95% CI, 86.1%-91.4%) was higher than that of the PEDS (79.6%; 95% CI, 75.7%-83.1%; P?<?.001 and P?=?.002, respectively), but differences in sensitivity were not statistically significant. Among older children (43-66 months), specificity of the ASQ-3 (92.1%; 95% CI, 85.1%-95.9%) was higher than that of the SWYC Milestones (70.7%; 95% CI, 60.9%-78.8%) and the PEDS (73.7%; 95% CI, 64.3%-81.3%; P?<?.001), but sensitivity to mild delays of the SWYC Milestones (54.8%; 95% CI, 38.1%-70.4%) and of the PEDS (61.8%; 95% CI, 43.1%-77.5%) was higher than that of the ASQ-3 (23.5%; 95% CI, 9.0%-48.8%; P?=?.012 and P?=?.002, respectively). Sensitivity exceeded 70% only with respect to severe delays, with 73.7% (95% CI, 50.1%-88.6%) for the SWYC Milestones among younger children, 78.9% (95% CI, 55.4%-91.9%) for the PEDS among younger children, and 77.8% (95% CI, 41.8%-94.5%) for the PEDS among older children. Attending to parents' concerns was associated with increased sensitivity of all questionnaires.Conclusions and relevanceThis study found that 3 frequently used screening questionnaires offer adequate specificity but modest sensitivity for detecting developmental delays among children aged 9 months to 5 years. The results suggest that trade-offs in sensitivity and specificity occurred among the questionnaires, with no one questionnaire emerging superior overall.

Project description:BackgroundDrawing conclusions from systematic reviews of test accuracy studies without considering the methodological quality (risk of bias) of included studies may lead to unwarranted optimism about the value of the test(s) under study. We sought to identify to what extent the results of quality assessment of included studies are incorporated in the conclusions of diagnostic accuracy reviews.MethodsWe searched MEDLINE and EMBASE for test accuracy reviews published between May and September 2012. We examined the abstracts and main texts of these reviews to see whether and how the results of quality assessment were linked to the accuracy estimates when drawing conclusions.ResultsWe included 65 reviews of which 53 contained a meta-analysis. Sixty articles (92%) had formally assessed the methodological quality of included studies, most often using the original QUADAS tool (n = 44, 68%). Quality assessment was mentioned in 28 abstracts (43%); with a majority (n = 21) mentioning it in the methods section. In only 5 abstracts (8%) were results of quality assessment incorporated in the conclusions. Thirteen reviews (20%) presented results of quality assessment in the main text only, without further discussion. Forty-seven reviews (72%) discussed results of quality assessment; the most frequent form was as limitations in assessing quality (n = 28). Only 6 reviews (9%) further linked the results of quality assessment to their conclusions, 3 of which did not conduct a meta-analysis due to limitations in the quality of included studies. In the reviews with a meta-analysis, 19 (36%) incorporated quality in the analysis. Eight reported significant effects of quality on the pooled estimates; in none of them these effects were factored in the conclusions.ConclusionWhile almost all recent diagnostic accuracy reviews evaluate the quality of included studies, very few consider results of quality assessment when drawing conclusions. The practice of reporting systematic reviews of test accuracy should improve if readers not only want to be informed about the limitations in the available evidence, but also on the associated implications for the performance of the evaluated tests.

Project description:BACKGROUND: To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of the integrated Practical Approach to Lung Health in South Africa (PALSA) guideline in identifying patients requiring bacteriological screening for tuberculosis (TB), and to determine which clinical features best predict suspected and bacteriologically-confirmed tuberculosis among patients with respiratory symptoms. METHODS: A prospective, cross-sectional study in which 1392 adult patients with cough and/or difficult breathing, attending a primary care facility in Cape Town, South Africa, were evaluated by a nurse using the guideline. The accuracy of a nurse using the guideline to identify TB suspects was compared to that of primary care physicians' diagnoses of (1) suspected TB, and (2) proven TB supported by clinical information and chest radiographs. RESULTS: The nurse using the guideline identified 516 patients as TB suspects compared with 365 by the primary care physicians, representing a sensitivity of 76% (95% confidence interval (CI) 71%-79%), specificity of 77% (95% CI 74%-79%), positive predictive value of 53% (95% CI 49%-58%), negative predictive value of 90% (95% CI 88%-92%), and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (ARUC) of 0.76 (95% CI 0.74-0.79). Sputum results were obtained in 320 of the 365 primary care physicians TB suspects (88%); 40 (13%) of these were positive for TB. Only 4 cases were not identified by the nurse using the guideline. The primary care physicians diagnostic accuracy in diagnosing bacteriologically-confirmed TB (n = 320) was as follows: sensitivity 90% (95% CI 76%-97%), specificity 65% (95% CI 63%-68%), negative predictive value 7% (95% CI 5%-10%), positive predictive value 99.5% (95% CI 98.8%-99.8%), and ARUC 0.78 (95% CI 0.73-0.82). Weight loss, pleuritic pain, and night sweats were independently associated with the diagnosis of bacteriologically-confirmed tuberculosis (positive likelihood ratio if all three present = 16.7, 95% CI 5.9-29.4). CONCLUSION: The PALSA guideline is an effective screening tool for identifying patients requiring bacteriological screening for pulmonary tuberculosis in this primary care setting. This supports the randomized trial finding that use of the guideline increased TB case detection.

Dataset Information

Diagnostic accuracy of developmental screening in primary care at the 18-month health supervision visit: a cross-sectional study.

Background

Methods

Results

Interpretation

Publications

Diagnostic accuracy of developmental screening in primary care at the 18-month health supervision visit: a cross-sectional study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets