Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 6 de 6
Filtrar
Más filtros












Base de datos
Intervalo de año de publicación
1.
Pediatrics ; 152(6)2023 Dec 01.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37946609

RESUMEN

CONTEXT: Very preterm birth (<32 weeks) is associated with increased risk of developmental disorders. Emerging evidence suggests children born 32 to 38 weeks might also be at risk. OBJECTIVES: To determine the relative risk and prevalence of being diagnosed with, or screening positive for, developmental disorders in children born moderately preterm, late preterm, and early term compared with term (≥37 weeks) or full term (39-40/41 weeks). DATA SOURCES: Medline, Embase, Psychinfo, Cumulative Index of Nursing, and Allied Health Literature. STUDY SELECTION: Reported ≥1 developmental disorder, provided estimates for children born 32 to 38 weeks. DATA EXTRACTION: A single reviewer extracted data; a 20% sample was second checked. Data were pooled using random-effects meta-analyses. RESULTS: Seventy six studies were included. Compared with term born children, there was increased risk of most developmental disorders, particularly in the moderately preterm group, but also in late preterm and early term groups: the relative risk of cerebral palsy was, for 32 to 33 weeks: 14.1 (95% confidence intervals [CI]: 12.3-16.0), 34 to 36 weeks: 3.52 (95% CI: 3.16-3.92) and 37 to 38 weeks: 1.44 (95% CI: 1.32-1.58). LIMITATIONS: Studies assessed children at different ages using varied criteria. The majority were from economically developed countries. All were published in English. Data were variably sparse; subgroup comparisons were sometimes based on single studies. CONCLUSIONS: Children born moderately preterm are at increased risk of being diagnosed with or screening positive for developmental disorders compared with term born children. This association is also demonstrated in late preterm and early term groups but effect sizes are smaller.


Asunto(s)
Parálisis Cerebral , Nacimiento Prematuro , Humanos , Recién Nacido , Parálisis Cerebral/epidemiología , Discapacidades del Desarrollo/epidemiología , Edad Gestacional , Recien Nacido Prematuro
2.
EClinicalMedicine ; 19: 100227, 2020 Feb.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32140666

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Determining which babies should receive antibiotics for potential early onset sepsis (EOS) is challenging. We performed a meta-analysis quantifying how many EOS cases might be 'missed' using the Kaiser Permanente electronic calculator, compared with National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines. METHODS: A systematic literature search was carried out for studies citing the article in which the calculator was publicised. Studies were eligible if they presented data evaluating the calculator, either by retrospective case review or prospective cohort study. The primary outcome measure was numbers of culture positive EOS cases where the calculator did not recommend empirical antibiotics, but NICE guidelines would have. Data were pooled using a random effect meta-analysis. A subgroup analysis was performed using data from studies of babies exposed to chorioamnionitis. FINDINGS: Eleven studies were included. There were a total of 75 EOS cases across the studies and a minimum of 14 (best case scenario), and a maximum of 22 (worst case scenario) cases where use of the calculator would have resulted in delayed or missed treatment, compared to if NICE guidelines had been followed. The probability of missed/delayed treatment for an EOS case were best case 0.19 [95% confidence intervals 0.11 - 0.29], worst case 0.31 [95% CI 0.17 - 0.49]. The probability of missing cases was significantly more in babies exposed to chorioamnionitis. INTERPRETATION: A large proportion of EOS cases were 'missed' by the calculator. Further evaluation of the calculator is recommended before it is introduced into UK clinical practice. FUNDING: None.

4.
Arch Dis Child ; 105(2): 160-165, 2020 02.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31409594

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the impact on early development of prematurity and summer birth and the potential 'double disadvantage' created by starting school a year earlier than anticipated during pregnancy, due to being born preterm. DESIGN, SETTING AND PATIENTS: We investigated the impact of gestational and school-entry age on the likelihood of failing to achieve a 'Good Level of Development' (GLD) on the Early Years Foundation Stage Profile in 5-year-old children born moderate-to-late preterm using data from the Born in Bradford longitudinal birth cohort. We used hierarchical logistic regression to control for chronological maturity, and perinatal and socioeconomic factors. RESULTS: Gestational age and school-entry age were significant predictors of attaining a GLD in the 10 337 children who entered school in the correct academic year given their estimated date of delivery. The odds of not attaining a GLD increased by 1.09 (95% CI 1.06 to 1.11) for each successive week born early and by 1.17 for each month younger within the year group (95% CI 1.16 to 1.18). There was no interaction between these two effects. Children starting school a year earlier than anticipated during pregnancy were less likely to achieve a GLD compared with (1) other children born preterm (fully adjusted OR 5.51 (2.85-14.25)); (2) term summer births (3.02 (1.49-6.79)); and (3) preterm summer births who remained within their anticipated school-entry year (3.64 (1.27-11.48)). CONCLUSIONS: These results confirm the developmental risks faced by children born moderate-to-late preterm, and-for the first time-illustrate the increased risk associated with 'double disadvantage'.


Asunto(s)
Rendimiento Académico , Edad Gestacional , Recien Nacido Prematuro/crecimiento & desarrollo , Factores de Edad , Preescolar , Estudios de Cohortes , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Medición de Riesgo , Instituciones Académicas
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA
...