CATALISE: A multinational and multidisciplinary Delphi consensus study. Identifying language impairments in children

Delayed or impaired language development is a common developmental concern, yet thereis little agreement about the criteria used to identify and classify language impairments inchildren. Children's language difficulties are at the interface between education, medicineand the allied professions, who may all adopt different approaches to conceptualising them.Our goal in this study was to use an online Delphi technique to see whether it was possibleto achieve consensus among professionals on appropriate criteria for identifying childrenwho might benefit from specialist services. We recruited a panel of 59 experts representingten disciplines (including education, psychology, speech-language therapy/pathology, paediatricsand child psychiatry) from English-speaking countries (Australia, Canada, Ireland,New Zealand, United Kingdom and USA). The starting point for round 1 was a set of 46statements based on articles and commentaries in a special issue of a journal focusing onthis topic. Panel members rated each statement for both relevance and validity on a sevenpointscale, and added free text comments. These responses were synthesised by the firsttwo authors, who then removed, combined or modified items with a view to improving consensus.The resulting set of statements was returned to the panel for a second evaluation(round 2). Consensus (percentage reporting 'agree' or 'strongly agree') was at least 80 percentfor 24 of 27 round 2 statements, though many respondents qualified their responsewith written comments. These were again synthesised by the first two authors. The resultingconsensus statement is reported here, with additional summary of relevant evidence, and aconcluding commentary on residual disagreements and gaps in the evidence base.</p

Phase 2 of CATALISE: a multinational and multidisciplinary Delphi consensus study of problems with language development: Terminology.

Background: Lack of agreement about criteria and terminology for children’s language problems affects access to services as well as hindering research and practice. We report the second phase of a study using an online Delphi method to address these issues. In the first phase, we focused on criteria for language disorder. Here we consider terminology.Methods: The Delphi method is an iterative process in which an initial set of statements is rated by a panel of experts, who then have the opportunity to view anonymised ratings from other panel members. On this basis they can either revise their views or make a case for their position. The statements are then revised based on panel feedback, and again rated by and commented on by the panel. In this study, feedback from a second round was used to prepare a final set of statements in narrative form. The panel included 57 individuals representing a range of professions and nationalities. Results: We achieved at least 78% agreement for 19 of 21 statements within two rounds of ratings. These were collapsed into 12 statements for the final consensus reported here. The term ‘Language Disorder’ is recommended to refer to a profile of difficulties that causes functional impairment in everyday life and is associated with poor prognosis. The term, ‘Developmental Language Disorder’ (DLD) was endorsed for use when the language disorder was not associated with a known biomedical aetiology. It was also agreed that (a) presence of risk factors (neurobiological or environmental) does not preclude a diagnosis of DLD, (b) DLD can co-occur with other neurodevelopmental disorders (e.g. ADHD) and (c) DLD does not require a mismatch between verbal and nonverbal ability. Conclusions: This Delphi exercise highlights reasons for disagreements about terminology for language disorders and proposes standard definitions and nomenclature. </p

Occult rib fractures: defining the cause

The probability of physical abuse (PA) is high in children with occult rib fractures. Other causes include non-intentional trauma, post surgery and cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Bone fragility increases the risk of fractures, namely metabolic bone disease of prematurity (MBDP), osteogenesis imperfecta, rickets and rare metabolic bone diseases. ‘Occult rib fractures have a high probability of physical abuse’ This case series describes 61 children under two years of age with rib fractures and associations with clinical and radiological features and aetiology. There were 20 cases of PA, 11 post surgical and three non-intentional trauma. Two cases had fractures following cardiopulmonary resuscitation, 18 MBDP and one metabolic bone disease. In six cases, the cause remained unknown. The number and distribution of rib fractures and the age of infants did not discriminate between MBDP and PA. Fractures were predominantly posterior, postero-lateral or lateral. All cases of MBDP had a gestational age of 31 weeks or less and birth weight < 1.25 kg. Each child with MBDP had at least one additional risk factor. Chronic lung disease was recorded in seven, prolonged total parenteral nutrition in ten, steroid use in four, furosemide medication in eight and necrotising enterocolitis in three. All PA cases had other associated injuries or signs of neglect. We recommend a comprehensive assessment of infants with occult rib fractures including an examination to exclude associated trauma, a child protection assessment and a full clinical assessment to exclude risk factors for co-existing bone fragility

Phase 2 of CATALISE:a multinational and multidisciplinary Delphi consensus study of problems with language development: Terminology

BACKGROUND: Lack of agreement about criteria and terminology for children's language problems affects access to services as well as hindering research and practice. We report the second phase of a study using an online Delphi method to address these issues. In the first phase, we focused on criteria for language disorder. Here we consider terminology. METHODS: The Delphi method is an iterative process in which an initial set of statements is rated by a panel of experts, who then have the opportunity to view anonymised ratings from other panel members. On this basis they can either revise their views or make a case for their position. The statements are then revised based on panel feedback, and again rated by and commented on by the panel. In this study, feedback from a second round was used to prepare a final set of statements in narrative form. The panel included 57 individuals representing a range of professions and nationalities. RESULTS: We achieved at least 78% agreement for 19 of 21 statements within two rounds of ratings. These were collapsed into 12 statements for the final consensus reported here. The term ‘Language Disorder’ is recommended to refer to a profile of difficulties that causes functional impairment in everyday life and is associated with poor prognosis. The term, ‘Developmental Language Disorder’ (DLD) was endorsed for use when the language disorder was not associated with a known biomedical aetiology. It was also agreed that (a) presence of risk factors (neurobiological or environmental) does not preclude a diagnosis of DLD, (b) DLD can co‐occur with other neurodevelopmental disorders (e.g. ADHD) and (c) DLD does not require a mismatch between verbal and nonverbal ability. CONCLUSIONS: This Delphi exercise highlights reasons for disagreements about terminology for language disorders and proposes standard definitions and nomenclature.This work was supported by Wellcome Trust Programme Grant no. 082498/Z/07/Z. The authors thank Holly Thornton and Denise Cripps for their help in running the CATALISE project and Pauline Frizelle, Helen Murrell and Yvonne Wren for comments on an earlier draft. CATALISE stands for Criteria and Terminology Applied to Language Impairments: Synthesising the Evidence. This paper was handled by the Editor-in-Chief and has undergone the normal external peer review. (082498/Z/07/Z - Wellcome Trust Programme)Published versio