15
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Mary Crosse project: systematic reviews and grading the value of neonatal tests in predicting long term outcomes

      research-article
      1 , , 1 , 1
      BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth
      BioMed Central

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Events before birth, condition at birth, events immediately following birth, and condition in early childhood are linked together, and have implications for health and disease in adulthood. At present, there is lack of clarity about the tests that purport to link these various stages. This is partly because there is paucity of collated information about the best strategies for predicting longer-term outcomes before (using tests in fetal period) or after birth (using tests in neonatal period, infancy as well as early childhood).

          Methods/Design

          A series of systematic reviews and meta-analyses will be undertaken to determine, amongst neonates, the ability of various tests and measures to predict infant, childhood and adult outcomes. We will search Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, MEDION, citation lists of review articles and eligible primary articles and will contact experts in the field. Independent reviewers will select studies, extract data and assess study quality according to established criteria. Language restrictions will not be applied. Data synthesis will involve meta-analysis (where appropriate), exploration of heterogeneity and publication bias. Evidence collated will be graded for its quality to support decision making.

          Discussion

          The project will collate, synthesise and evaluate the available evidence concerning the value of tests of neonatal wellbeing to predict long term outcomes. The systematic reviews will assess the quality of available evidence and identify tests with the strongest association with outcomes, and assess their economic value. The output of this project will help formulate practice recommendations.

          Related collections

          Most cited references26

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Type 2 (non-insulin-dependent) diabetes mellitus, hypertension and hyperlipidaemia (syndrome X): relation to reduced fetal growth

          Two follow-up studies were carried out to determine whether lower birthweight is related to the occurrence of syndrome X-Type 2 (non-insulin-dependent) diabetes mellitus, hypertension and hyperlipidaemia. The first study included 407 men born in Hertfordshire, England between 1920 and 1930 whose weights at birth and at 1 year of age had been recorded by health visitors. The second study included 266 men and women born in Preston, UK, between 1935 and 1943 whose size at birth had been measured in detail. The prevalence of syndrome X fell progressively in both men and women, from those who had the lowest to those who had the highest birthweights. Of 64-year-old men whose birthweights were 2.95 kg (6.5 pounds) or less, 22% had syndrome X. Their risk of developing syndrome X was more than 10 times greater than that of men whose birthweights were more than 4.31 kg (9.5 pounds). The association between syndrome X and low birthweight was independent of duration of gestation and of possible confounding variables including cigarette smoking, alcohol consumption and social class currently or at birth. In addition to low birthweight, subjects with syndrome X had small head circumference and low ponderal index at birth, and low weight and below-average dental eruption at 1 year of age. It is concluded that Type 2 diabetes and hypertension have a common origin in sub-optimal development in utero, and that syndrome X should perhaps be re-named "the small-baby syndrome".
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Systematic reviews in health care: Systematic reviews of evaluations of diagnostic and screening tests.

            J J Deeks (2001)
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Sources of variation and bias in studies of diagnostic accuracy: a systematic review.

              Studies of diagnostic accuracy are subject to different sources of bias and variation than studies that evaluate the effectiveness of an intervention. Little is known about the effects of these sources of bias and variation. To summarize the evidence on factors that can lead to bias or variation in the results of diagnostic accuracy studies. MEDLINE, EMBASE, and BIOSIS, and the methodologic databases of the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and the Cochrane Collaboration. Methodologic experts in diagnostic tests were contacted. Studies that investigated the effects of bias and variation on measures of test performance were eligible for inclusion, which was assessed by one reviewer and checked by a second reviewer. Discrepancies were resolved through discussion. Data extraction was conducted by one reviewer and checked by a second reviewer. The best-documented effects of bias and variation were found for demographic features, disease prevalence and severity, partial verification bias, clinical review bias, and observer and instrument variation. For other sources, such as distorted selection of participants, absent or inappropriate reference standard, differential verification bias, and review bias, the amount of evidence was limited. Evidence was lacking for other features, including incorporation bias, treatment paradox, arbitrary choice of threshold value, and dropouts. Many issues in the design and conduct of diagnostic accuracy studies can lead to bias or variation; however, the empirical evidence about the size and effect of these issues is limited.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                BMC Pregnancy Childbirth
                BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth
                BioMed Central
                1471-2393
                2009
                29 October 2009
                : 9
                : 49
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Academic Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, School of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, University of Birmingham, Birmingham Women's Hospital, Birmingham. B15 2TG. UK
                Article
                1471-2393-9-49
                10.1186/1471-2393-9-49
                2774285
                19874579
                10bd1b18-0a5a-4c03-a7b3-d828bc8f8d2a
                Copyright © 2009 Malin et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 27 July 2009
                : 29 October 2009
                Categories
                Study Protocol

                Obstetrics & Gynecology
                Obstetrics & Gynecology

                Comments

                Comment on this article