Evidence mapPaperPMID 41238770Full record

ArticleScientific reports2025

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on early childhood development assessed with the Denver II developmental screening test in a single center.

Selçuk Özkan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Selçuk ÖzkanDepartment of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Kütahya Health Sciences University, Kütahya, Turkey. drselcukozkan@yahoo.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted early childhood development globally by altering social environments and limiting access to early stimulation and care. While the broader consequences of the pandemic on child development have been widely speculated, objective data from structured developmental assessments remain limited. This retrospective cross-sectional study compared developmental outcomes of children aged 0 to 6 years who underwent the Denver II Developmental Screening Test at a single child psychiatry center in Kütahya, Turkey. The study included 709 children, with 431 assessed in 2019 (pre-pandemic) and 278 assessed in 2021 (during the pandemic). Developmental domains analyzed included personal-social, fine motor, language, and gross motor. Mean delay scores in the language and personal-social domains significantly increased during the pandemic period (p < 0.001), while fine motor delays significantly decreased (p < 0.001 ). No significant changes were observed in the gross motor domains or global developmental delays. Notably, the proportion of children with isolated language delays rose from 3.2% to 11.5%. Additionally, girls were found to be more affected, with significantly higher rates of developmental delays compared to boys. These findings suggest that the pandemic selectively impaired language development and personal social skills while potentially preserving or enhancing fine motor skills through increased home-based play. Public health efforts in post-pandemic recovery should prioritize early language and other interventions, especially for children and young girls exposed to the pandemic during critical language acquisition periods.

Indexed as

Child DevelopmentCOVID-19Developmental DisabilitiesChildChild, PreschoolCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansInfantInfant, NewbornMalePandemicsRetrospective StudiesSARS-CoV-2TurkeyChildrenDelayDevelopmentPandemic

Identifiers

PMID41238770
PMCPMC12618542

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.