A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 197

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 197
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 271
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1075
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3195
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 597
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 511
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 317
Function: require_once

Developmental screening tools for identification of children with developmental difficulties in high-income countries: a systematic review. | LitMetric

Category Ranking

98%

Total Visits

921

Avg Visit Duration

2 minutes

Citations

20

Article Abstract

Objective: To examine and synthesize the literature on the use of universal developmental screening and surveillance tools in high-income countries in relation to (1) psychometric properties; (2) knowledge, acceptability, and feasibility of tools; and (3) follow-up taken following screening/surveillance.

Method: A PRISMA-compliant systematic review was performed in the PsychInfo, PubMed, and Embase databases. Studies published in the English language were included if they reported results evaluating a universal developmental screening or surveillance measurement tool. Articles on service providers' and/or parents' views on developmental screening were also included. Two independent reviewers extracted data and assessed for risk of bias using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool and the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies Tool. Results were synthesized qualitatively.

Results: Initial searches identified 2,078 articles, of which 52 were included in the final review. Findings showed that several articles assessing the accuracy of screening tools have been published, and together, they suggest that the accuracy of screening tools varies across cultures and countries. Furthermore, available literature indicated that administering universal developmental screening tools was feasible and acceptable, though only a small number of studies are available. Results also showed a limited number of studies looking at actions taken following positive screening results.

Conclusion: As the evidence stands, more research assessing the acceptability, feasibility, and accuracy of developmental screeners, is needed.

Systematic Review Registration: This review has been registered with the University of York Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (PROSPERO; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=337320, registration number CRD42022337320).

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11732054PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/frcha.2023.1074004DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

developmental screening
20
screening tools
16
universal developmental
12
high-income countries
8
systematic review
8
screening surveillance
8
acceptability feasibility
8
accuracy screening
8
number studies
8
developmental
7

Similar Publications