Background: The Early Development Instrument (EDI) was developed as a population-level assessment of children’s developmental health at school entry. EDI data collection has created unprecedented opportunities for population-level studies on children’s developmental outcomes. The goal of this narrative review was to synthesize research using the EDI to describe how it contributes to expanding the understanding of the impacts of social determinants on child development and how it applies to special populations. Methods: Select studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals between 2015 and 2020 and incorporating the social determinants of health perspectives were chosen to highlight the capability of the EDI to monitor children’s developmental health and contribute knowledge in the area of early childhood development. Results: A number of studies have examined the association between several social determinants of health and children’s developmental outcomes, including hard-to-reach and low-frequency populations of children. The EDI has also been used to evaluate programs and interventions in different countries. Conclusions: The ability of the EDI to monitor children’s developmental outcomes in various populations has been consistently demonstrated. The EDI, by virtue of its comprehensive breadth and census-like collection, widens the scope of research relating to early childhood development and its social determinants of health.

It is unclear whether D-dimer is a disease-specific marker for COVID-19 or part of the general inflammatory response alongside C-reactive protein (CRP) and other acute-phase reactants. We extracted data of patients hos-pitalized with COVID-19 for demographics, comorbidities, biochemical data, and outcomes. Using multivari-able logistic regression, the value of D-dimer in predicting intensive care unit (ICU) admission or mortality was measured. Of 1175 patients, 263 were admitted to the ICU and 226 died. CRP predicted both ICU admission and mortality [Odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence interval 1.01 (1.01–1.01) and 1.00 (1.00–1.01), respectively] but D-dimer was not predictive of either outcome [ORs 1.02 (0.97–1.06) and 0.99 (0.93–1.06)]. This suggests D-dimer levels are not independently predictive of COVID-19 severity or mortality. Our results confirm find-ings from smaller cohorts and demonstrate the inflammatory characteristics of COVID in the Canadian context. RésuméOn ne sait pas exactement si le D-dimère est un marqueur propre à la COVID-19 ou s’il fait partie de la réponse inflammatoire générale au même titre que la protéine C réactive et autres réactifs de phase aiguë. Nous avons extrait les données relatives aux caractéristiques démographiques, aux affections comorbides, aux analyses bio-chimiques et aux issues de patients hospitalisés en raison de la COVID-19. À l’aide d’une régression logistique multivariable, nous avons mesuré l’utilité du D-dimère dans la prédiction de l’admission à l’unité des soins intensifs (USI) ou de la mortalité. Sur 1175 patients, 263 ont été admis à l’USI et 226 sont décédés. La protéine C réactive a permis de prédire l’admission à l’USI (rapport de cotes [RC] = 1,01; intervalle de confiance [IC] à 95 % de 1,01 à 1,01) et la mortalité (RC = 1,00; IC à 95 % de 1,00 à 1,01), mais le D-dimère n’a pas permis de prédire l’une ou l’autre issue (RC = 1,02; IC à 95 % de 0,97 à 1,06 pour l’admission à l’USI et RC = 0,99; IC à 95 % de 0,93 à 1,06 pour la mortalité). D’après ces résultats, les taux de D-dimère ne sont pas des prédicteurs indépendants de la gravité de la COVID-19 ou de la mortalité. Nos résultats confirment les résultats de cohortes plus petites et démontrent les caractéristiques inflammatoires de la COVID-19 dans le contexte canadien.