Archives of disease in childhood. Fetal and neonatal edition · 2017
Validity of neurodevelopmental outcomes of children born very preterm assessed during routine clinical follow-up in England.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Wong Hilary S, Cowan Frances M, Modi Neena, Medicines for Neonates Investigator Group
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To determine the validity of assessing and recording the neurodevelopmental outcome of very preterm infants during routine clinical follow-up in England.
DESIGN: Children born <30 weeks gestation, attending routine clinical follow-up at post-term ages 20-28 months, were recruited. Data on neurodevelopmental outcomes were recorded by the reviewing clinician in a standardised format in the child's electronic patient record, based on a set of key questions designed to be used without formal training or developmental testing. Using a predefined algorithm, each participant was classified as having 'no', 'mild/moderate' or 'severe' impairment in cognitive, communication and motor domains. All participants also received a research assessment by a single assessor using the Bayley Scales of Infant Development, third edition (Bayley-III). The sensitivity and specificity of routine data in capturing impairment (any Bayley-III score <85) or severe impairment (any Bayley-III score <70) was calculated.
RESULTS: 190 children participated. The validity of routine assessments in identifying children with no impairment and no severe impairment was high across all domains (specificities 83.9%-100.0% and 96.6%-100.0%, respectively). However, identification of impairments, particularly in the cognitive (sensitivity 69.7% (55.1%-84.3%)) and communication (sensitivity (53.2% (42.0%-64.5%)) domains, was poor.
CONCLUSIONS: Neurodevelopmental status determined during routine clinical assessment lacks adequate sensitivity in cognitive and communication domains. It is uncertain whether this reflects the assessment or/and the recording of findings. As early intervention may improve education and social outcomes, this is an important area for healthcare quality improvement research.
DESIGN: Children born <30 weeks gestation, attending routine clinical follow-up at post-term ages 20-28 months, were recruited. Data on neurodevelopmental outcomes were recorded by the reviewing clinician in a standardised format in the child's electronic patient record, based on a set of key questions designed to be used without formal training or developmental testing. Using a predefined algorithm, each participant was classified as having 'no', 'mild/moderate' or 'severe' impairment in cognitive, communication and motor domains. All participants also received a research assessment by a single assessor using the Bayley Scales of Infant Development, third edition (Bayley-III). The sensitivity and specificity of routine data in capturing impairment (any Bayley-III score <85) or severe impairment (any Bayley-III score <70) was calculated.
RESULTS: 190 children participated. The validity of routine assessments in identifying children with no impairment and no severe impairment was high across all domains (specificities 83.9%-100.0% and 96.6%-100.0%, respectively). However, identification of impairments, particularly in the cognitive (sensitivity 69.7% (55.1%-84.3%)) and communication (sensitivity (53.2% (42.0%-64.5%)) domains, was poor.
CONCLUSIONS: Neurodevelopmental status determined during routine clinical assessment lacks adequate sensitivity in cognitive and communication domains. It is uncertain whether this reflects the assessment or/and the recording of findings. As early intervention may improve education and social outcomes, this is an important area for healthcare quality improvement research.