RESUMEN
PURPOSE: This study examined the accuracy and reliability of measuring total motion of the fingers via telehealth using the following three different methods: (1) goniometry, (2) visual estimation, and (3) electronic protractor. Measurements were compared with in-person measurement, which was assumed to be the reference standard. METHODS: Thirty clinicians measured finger range of motion from prerecorded videos of a mannequin hand with articulating fingers, which was posed in extension and flexion that simulated a telehealth visit, using a goniometer with results blinded to the clinician (blinded goniometry), visual estimation, and an electronic protractor, in random order. Total motion was calculated for each finger and for all four fingers in sum. The experience level, familiarity with measuring finger range of motion, and opinions of measurement difficulty were assessed. RESULTS: Measurement with the electronic protractor was the only method equivalent to the reference standard within 20°. Remote goniometer and visual estimation did not fall within the acceptable error margin of equivalence, and both underestimated total motion. Electronic protractor also had the highest interrater reliability (intraclass correlation [upper limit, lower limit], 0.95 [0.92, 0.95]); goniometry (intraclass correlation, 0.94 [0.91, 0.97]) was nearly identical, whereas visual estimation (intraclass correlation, 0.82 [0.74, 0.89]) was much lower. Clinicians' experience and familiarity with range of motion measurements had no relationship with the findings. Clinicians reported visual estimation as the most difficult (80%) and electronic protractor as the easiest method (73%). CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that traditional in-person forms of measurement underestimate finger range of motion via telehealth; a new computer-based method (ie, electronic protractor) was found to be more accurate. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The use of an electronic protractor can be beneficial to clinicians measuring range of motion in patients virtually.
RESUMEN
Several studies suggest that acute bouts of exercise improve executive function in preadolescent children. However, the mechanisms underlying these effects are not completely understood. Specifically, no studies have examined the relationship between the stress hormone response to exercise and improvements in executive function in preadolescent children. The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of a bout of moderate intensity exercise versus rest on working memory (List Sorting Working Memory Task) and selective inhibition/attention (Eriksen flanker task) in preadolescent children, as well as to investigate whether changes in stress hormones (salivary cortisol and alpha-amylase) could explain any differences in performance on these tasks. Twenty-four children completed both a 30-minute moderate intensity bout of treadmill walking and seated rest in a laboratory setting. Tests of executive function and salivary stress hormone analyses were completed before and after each condition. 2x2 Repeated Measures ANOVAs were used to test the effects of time, condition, and time*condition on all executive function and hormonal outcomes. Linear regression models were used to determine if changes in executive function measures were related to changes in stress hormones in the exercise condition. Likely due to methodological limitations, there were no effects of time, condition, nor an interactive effect on working memory, selective inhibition, salivary cortisol, or salivary alpha-amylase. However, there was a trend observed, where the magnitude of the increase in salivary alpha-amylase levels in the exercise condition marginally predicted the improvement in reaction time on the Eriksen flanker task. This suggests that exercise-induced changes in alpha-amylase may underlie improvements in executive function and highlights the need for additional research to more fully understand these relationships in preadolescent children.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Faltering in linear growth and neurobehavioural development during early childhood are often assumed to have common causes because of their consistent association. This notion has contributed to a global focus on the promotion of nutrition during pregnancy and childhood to improve both conditions. Our aim was to assess whether effects of interventions on linear growth are associated with effects on developmental scores and to quantify these associations. METHODS: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we included randomised trials done during pregnancy and in children aged 0-5 years that reported effects of any intervention on length-for-age or height-for-age Z scores (LAZ or HAZ) and on any of the following outcomes: motor, cognitive or mental, language, and social-emotional or behavioural development. We searched MEDLINE (Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCO), and PsycINFO (EBSCO) from database inception to June 25, 2019. Study-level data were extracted and, when required, authors were contacted for missing information. We calculated weighted meta-regression coefficients of the association between standardised effect sizes of interventions on LAZ or HAZ and developmental outcome scores and calculated pooled effect sizes for different types of intervention. FINDINGS: Of the 7207 studies identified, we included 75 studies with 122 comparisons between intervention and control groups and outcomes reported for 72â275 children. Across all interventions, effect sizes on LAZ or HAZ were significantly associated with effect sizes on social-emotional scores (ß 0·23, 95% CI 0·05 to 0·41; p=0·02), but not on cognitive (0·18, -0·36 to 0·72; p=0·51), language (0·12, -0·07 to 0·31; p=0·21), or motor development scores (0·23, -0·05 to 0·50; p=0·11). In studies that provided nutritional supplements, we observed positive significant pooled effect sizes on all five outcomes of LAZ or HAZ (effect size 0·05, 95% CI 0·01-0·09; p=0·01; n=50), cognitive or mental (0·06, 0·03-0·10; p<0·01; n=38), language (0·08, 0·03-0·13; p=0·01; n=21), motor (0·08, 0·04-0·12; p<0·01; n=41), and social-emotional (0·07, 0·02-0·12; p=0·01; n=20) scores. The effect sizes of nutritional supplementation on LAZ or HAZ scores were significantly associated with effect sizes on cognitive (ß 0·40, 95% CI 0·04-0·77; p=0·049) and motor (0·43, 0·11-0·75; p=0·01) scores. In the 14 interventions promoting responsive care and learning opportunities, the pooled effect size on LAZ or HAZ score was not significant (-0·01, 95% CI -0·07 to 0·05; p=0·74), but pooled effect sizes on cognitive, language, and motor scores were 4 to 5 times larger (range 0·38-0·48) than the pooled effect sizes of nutritional supplementation (0·05-0·08). INTERPRETATION: In nutritional supplementation interventions, improvements in linear growth were associated with small improvements in child development, whereas nurturing and stimulation interventions had significant effects on child development but no effects on linear growth. The determinants of linear growth and neurodevelopment are only partly shared. To nurture thriving individuals and communities, interventions should specifically target determinants of neurodevelopment and not simply linear growth. FUNDING: University of California Davis, US Department of Agriculture National Institute of Food and Agriculture.
