Adapting the Ages and Stages Questionnaire to Identify and Quantify Development Among Children With Evidence of Zika Infection.
Jacob E Attell, Charles Rose, Jeanne Bertolli and 8 others
PMID 33132516WHAT IT FOUND
A modified screening protocol allowed clinicians to quantify severe developmental delays in infants with congenital Zika infection.
Children with microcephaly showed profound delays, with median developmental ages far below their biological ages, while those without microcephaly scored closer to peers.
Key findings
01The modified protocol quantified severe delay in children with microcephaly, showing a median developmental age equivalent of 2.2 months compared to 23.1 months in children without microcephaly.
02Ninety-six percent of children with microcephaly had evidence of delay on at least one domain, compared to thirteen percent of children without microcephaly.
03The standard screening tool could not quantify severity in profoundly delayed children, necessitating an amended protocol that adjusted for functional age rather than biological age.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for PTsWhat it means for OTsWhat it means for SLPs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
The study did not compare the modified ASQ-3 estimates with a gold-standard diagnostic evaluation instrument like the Bayley Scales, so the accuracy of the quantified delay is not validated against a diagnostic standard. The protocol was developed and tested specifically in the context of congenital Zika infection in Brazil, and its applicability to other conditions or settings requires further validation. The study is a description of a methodology and its application rather than a controlled trial of an intervention, limiting conclusions about clinical outcomes or treatment efficacy.
Declared interests
The paper does not explicitly state conflicts of interest in the provided text, but notes collaboration between the Brazilian Ministry of Health and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
The easy way to misread this
Do not interpret the DQ z-scores or developmental age equivalents as diagnostic certainty. The authors state the ASQ-3 is a screening tool, not a diagnostic one, and the modified calculations have not been validated against a gold-standard diagnostic instrument like the Bayley Scales.