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:ObjectiveThere 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.MethodsWe 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.ResultsIn 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).ConclusionThe 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:ObjectiveFluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (18F-FDG PET) and PET/CT have been suggested for confirming or excluding musculoskeletal infection but the diagnostic value of this tool for pyogenic spondylitis remains to be confirmed. This meta-analysis was performed to verify the accuracy of 18F-FDG PET and PET/CT in diagnosing suspected pyogenic spondylitis by performing a systematic review and meta-analysis.MethodsWe conducted a comprehensive literature search of PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library to retrieve diagnostic accuracy studies in which suspected pyogenic spondylitis was assessed with 18F-FDG PET or PET/CT. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratios, diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), summarized receiver operating characteristic curve (sROC) and the area under the sROC (AUC) were calculated by using Stata software.ResultsA total of 18 eligible studies (660 patients) with suspected pyogenic spondylitis were included in the quantitative analysis. 18F-FDG PET and PET/CT illustrated relatively high sensitivity (0.91, 95% CI: 0.84-0.95) and specificity (0.90, 95% CI: 0.79-0.95) for the diagnosis of pyogenic spondylitis. The pooled DOR and AUC were 86.00 (95% CI, 31.00-240.00) and 0.96 (95% CI, 0.94-0.97), respectively. For diagnosing pyogenic spondylitis without previous spine surgery, the pooled sensitivity, specificity, DOR and AUC were 0.93 (95% CI, 0.85-0.97), 0.91 (95% CI, 0.77-0.97), 136 (95% CI, 35-530) and 0.97 (95% CI, 0.95-0.98), respectively. For diagnosing postoperative pyogenic spondylitis, the pooled sensitivity, specificity, DOR and AUC were 0.85 (95% CI, 0.71 to 0.93), 0.87 (95% CI, 0.66 to 0.96), 38 (95% CI, 9 to 167) and 0.92 (95% CI, 0.89 to 0.94), respectively.Conclusion18F-FDG PET and PET/CT presented satisfactory accuracy for diagnosing pyogenic spondylitis. The diagnostic effect of this nuclear imaging method for pyogenic spondylitis without previous spine surgery seems to be better than that for the postoperative ones. However, whether 18F-FDG PET and PET/CT could become a routine in patients with suspected pyogenic spondylitis remains to be confirmed.Level of evidenceLevel I evidence, a summary of meta-analysis.

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.

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