29
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Neurodevelopmental outcomes at age 5 among children born preterm: EPIPAGE-2 cohort study

      research-article
      1 , 2 , , 1 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 1 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 1 , 13 , 1 , 14 , 1 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 1 , 9 , 18 , 1 , 19 EPIPAGE-2 writing group, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
      The BMJ
      BMJ Publishing Group Ltd.

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      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

          Objectives

          To describe neurodevelopment at age 5 among children born preterm.

          Design

          Population based cohort study, EPIPAGE-2.

          Setting

          France, 2011.

          Participants

          4441 children aged 5½ born at 24-26, 27-31, and 32-34 weeks

          Main outcome measures

          Severe/moderate neurodevelopmental disabilities, defined as severe/moderate cerebral palsy (Gross Motor Function Classification System (GMFCS) ≥2), or unilateral or bilateral blindness or deafness, or full scale intelligence quotient less than minus two standard deviations (Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence, 4th edition). Mild neurodevelopmental disabilities, defined as mild cerebral palsy (GMFCS-1), or visual disability ≥3.2/10 and <5/10, or hearing loss <40 dB, or full scale intelligence quotient (minus two to minus one standard deviation) or developmental coordination disorders (Movement Assessment Battery for Children, 2nd edition, total score less than or equal to the fifth centile), or behavioural difficulties (strengths and difficulties questionnaire, total score greater than or equal to the 90th centile), school assistance (mainstream class with support or special school), complex developmental interventions, and parents’ concerns about development. The distributions of the scores in contemporary term born children were used as reference. Results are given after multiple imputation as percentages of outcome measures with exact binomial 95% confidence intervals.

          Results

          Among 4441 participants, 3083 (69.4%) children were assessed. Rates of severe/moderate neurodevelopmental disabilities were 28% (95% confidence interval 23.4% to 32.2%), 19% (16.8% to 20.7%), and 12% (9.2% to 14.0%) and of mild disabilities were 38.5% (33.7% to 43.4%), 36% (33.4% to 38.1%), and 34% (30.2% to 37.4%) at 24-26, 27-31, and 32-34 weeks, respectively. Assistance at school was used by 27% (22.9% to 31.7%), 14% (12.1% to 15.9%), and 7% (4.4% to 9.0%) of children at 24-26, 27-31, and 32-34 weeks, respectively. About half of the children born at 24-26 weeks (52% (46.4% to 57.3%)) received at least one developmental intervention which decreased to 26% (21.8% to 29.4%) for those born at 32-34 weeks. Behaviour was the concern most commonly reported by parents. Rates of neurodevelopment disabilities increased as gestational age decreased and were higher in families with low socioeconomic status.

          Conclusions

          In this large cohort of children born preterm, rates of severe/moderate neurodevelopmental disabilities remained high in each gestational age group. Proportions of children receiving school assistance or complex developmental interventions might have a significant impact on educational and health organisations. Parental concerns about behaviour warrant attention.

          Related collections

          Most cited references49

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found

          Multiple imputation using chained equations: Issues and guidance for practice

          Multiple imputation by chained equations is a flexible and practical approach to handling missing data. We describe the principles of the method and show how to impute categorical and quantitative variables, including skewed variables. We give guidance on how to specify the imputation model and how many imputations are needed. We describe the practical analysis of multiply imputed data, including model building and model checking. We stress the limitations of the method and discuss the possible pitfalls. We illustrate the ideas using a data set in mental health, giving Stata code fragments. 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire: A Research Note

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

              Psychometric properties of the strengths and difficulties questionnaire.

              To describe the psychometric properties of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ), a brief measure of the prosocial behavior and psychopathology of 3-16-year-olds that can be completed by parents, teachers, or youths. A nationwide epidemiological sample of 10,438 British 5-15-year-olds obtained SDQs from 96% of parents, 70% of teachers, and 91% of 11-15-year-olds. Blind to the SDQ findings, all subjects were also assigned DSM-IVdiagnoses based on a clinical review of detailed interview measures. The predicted five-factor structure (emotional, conduct, hyperactivity-inattention, peer, prosocial) was confirmed. Internalizing and externalizing scales were relatively "uncontaminated" by one another. Reliability was generally satisfactory, whether judged by internal consistency (mean Cronbach a: .73), cross-informant correlation (mean: 0.34), or retest stability after 4 to 6 months (mean: 0.62). SDQ scores above the 90th percentile predicted a substantially raised probability of independently diagnosed psychiatric disorders (mean odds ratio: 15.7 for parent scales, 15.2 for teacher scales, 6.2 for youth scales). The reliability and validity of the SDQ make it a useful brief measure of the adjustment and psychopathology of children and adolescents.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: neonatologist
                Role: statistician
                Role: professor in paediatrics
                Role: epidemiologist
                Role: health research engineer
                Role: professor in paediatrics
                Role: professor in paediatrics
                Role: epidemiologist
                Role: neonatologist
                Role: professor in obstetrics and gynaecology
                Role: epidemiologist
                Role: professor in paediatrics
                Role: neonatologist and epidemiologist
                Role: professor in paediatrics
                Role: research psychologist
                Role: professor in public health and epidemiology
                Role: professor in public health and epidemiology
                Journal
                BMJ
                BMJ
                BMJ-UK
                bmj
                The BMJ
                BMJ Publishing Group Ltd.
                0959-8138
                1756-1833
                2021
                28 April 2021
                : 373
                : n741
                Affiliations
                [1 ]University of Paris, CRESS, Obstetrical Perinatal and Pediatric Epidemiology Research Team, EPOPé, INSERM, INRAE, F-75004 Paris, France
                [2 ]CHU Lille, Department of Neonatal Medicine, Jeanne de Flandre Hospital, Lille, France
                [3 ]Department of Neonatal Medicine, Intensive Care, and Neuropediatrics, Rouen University Hospital, Rouen, France
                [4 ]INSERM U1254, Neovascular Team, Perinatal Handicap, Institute of Biomedical Research and Innovation, Normandy University, Rouen, France
                [5 ]INSERM U1027, SPHERE Team, France
                [6 ]Toulouse 3 University Paul-Sabatier, Toulouse, France
                [7 ]Clinical Epidemiology Unit, University Hospital Toulouse, Toulouse, France
                [8 ]Department of Neonatal Medicine, Montpellier University Hospital, Montpellier, France
                [9 ]Neonatal Intensive Care Unit, Grenoble Alps University Hospital, Grenoble, France
                [10 ]UMR 5525 Techniques pour l'Evaluation et la Modélisation des Actions de la Santé, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Techniques de l'Ingénierie Médicale et de la Complexité-Informatique, Mathématiques et Applications, Grenoble Alps University, Grenoble, France
                [11 ]French Institute for Demographic Studies, French Institute for Medical Research and Health, French Blood Agency, ELFE Joint Unit, Paris, France
                [12 ]Department of Neonatology, North Hospital, Assistance Publique des Hôpitaux de Marseille, Marseille, France
                [13 ]Port-Royal Maternity, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Centre-University of Paris, Federation Hospitalo-Universitairefor prematurity, Paris, France
                [14 ]Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, University Hospital Necker-Enfants Malades, University of Paris, Paris, France
                [15 ]UCL Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Institute for Women's Health, University College London, London, UK
                [16 ]Department of Neonatal Medicine, Nantes University Hospital, Nantes, France
                [17 ]Clinical Epidemiology, Clinical Investigation Centre CIC004, Nantes University Hospital, Nantes, France
                [18 ]University of Paris, CRESS, Team Early Life Research on Later Health, UMR 1153, INSERM, INRAE, Villejuif, France
                [19 ]Clinical Investigation Centre P1419, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Paris, France
                Author notes
                Correspondence to: V Pierrat, Tenon Hospital, Equipe EPOPé, U1153, 4 Rue de la Chine, 75020 Paris, France veronique.pierrat@ 123456inserm.fr
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7435-5144
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8036-8387
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2858-148X
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4002-802X
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1360-7915
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9947-270X
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4209-934X
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9643-0299
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2548-2304
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1872-4176
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4143-1977
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3367-512X
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7912-9883
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4025-4390
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9632-7494
                Article
                piev063241
                10.1136/bmj.n741
                8080137
                33910920
                89660451-7a8e-4023-8ce4-39a037a8137d
                © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

                This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

                History
                : 04 March 2021
                Categories
                Research

                Medicine
                Medicine

                Comments

                Comment on this article