Terri A Levine1, Ruth E Grunau2, Fionnuala M McAuliffe3, RagaMallika Pinnamaneni4, Adrienne Foran4, Fiona A Alderdice5. 1. School of Nursing and Midwifery, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, Northern Ireland; f.a.alderdice@qub.ac.uk. 2. School of Nursing and Midwifery, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, Northern Ireland; Department of Pediatrics, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada; Child and Family Research Institute, Vancouver, Canada; 3. Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, School of Medicine and Medical Science, University College Dublin, National Maternity Hospital, Dublin, Ireland; 4. Department of Neonatology, Rotunda Hospital, Dublin, Ireland; and Children's University Hospital, Temple Street, Dublin, Ireland. 5. School of Nursing and Midwifery, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, Northern Ireland;
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Children who experienced intrauterine growth restriction (IUGR) may be at increased risk for adverse developmental outcomes in early childhood. The objective of this study was to carry out a systematic review of neurodevelopmental outcomes from 6 months to 3 years after IUGR. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, Maternity and Infant Care, and CINAHL databases were searched by using the search terms intrauterine, fetal, growth restriction, child development, neurodevelopment, early childhood, cognitive, motor, speech, language. Studies were eligible for inclusion if participants met specified criteria for growth restriction, follow-up was conducted within 6 months to 3 years, methods were adequately described, non-IUGR comparison groups were included, and full English text of the article was available. A specifically designed data extraction form was used. The methodological quality of included studies was assessed using well-documented quality-appraisal guidelines. RESULTS: Of 731 studies reviewed, 16 were included. Poorer neurodevelopmental outcomes after IUGR were described in 11. Ten found motor, 8 cognitive, and 7 language delays. Other delays included social development, attention, and adaptive behavior. Only 8 included abnormal Doppler parameters in their definitions of IUGR. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence suggests that children are at risk for poorer neurodevelopmental outcomes following IUGR from 6 months to 3 years of age. The heterogeneity of primary outcomes, assessment measures, adjustment for confounding variables, and definitions of IUGR limits synthesis and interpretation. Sample sizes in most studies were small, and some examined preterm IUGR children without including term IUGR or AGA comparison groups, limiting the value of extant studies.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE:Children who experienced intrauterine growth restriction (IUGR) may be at increased risk for adverse developmental outcomes in early childhood. The objective of this study was to carry out a systematic review of neurodevelopmental outcomes from 6 months to 3 years after IUGR. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, Maternity and Infant Care, and CINAHL databases were searched by using the search terms intrauterine, fetal, growth restriction, child development, neurodevelopment, early childhood, cognitive, motor, speech, language. Studies were eligible for inclusion if participants met specified criteria for growth restriction, follow-up was conducted within 6 months to 3 years, methods were adequately described, non-IUGR comparison groups were included, and full English text of the article was available. A specifically designed data extraction form was used. The methodological quality of included studies was assessed using well-documented quality-appraisal guidelines. RESULTS: Of 731 studies reviewed, 16 were included. Poorer neurodevelopmental outcomes after IUGR were described in 11. Ten found motor, 8 cognitive, and 7 language delays. Other delays included social development, attention, and adaptive behavior. Only 8 included abnormal Doppler parameters in their definitions of IUGR. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence suggests that children are at risk for poorer neurodevelopmental outcomes following IUGR from 6 months to 3 years of age. The heterogeneity of primary outcomes, assessment measures, adjustment for confounding variables, and definitions of IUGR limits synthesis and interpretation. Sample sizes in most studies were small, and some examined preterm IUGR children without including term IUGR or AGA comparison groups, limiting the value of extant studies.
Authors: Jamie O Lo; Matthias C Schabel; Victoria H J Roberts; Xiaojie Wang; Katherine S Lewandowski; Kathleen A Grant; Antonio E Frias; Christopher D Kroenke Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2017-01-30 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Laura A Schieve; Lin H Tian; Kristin Rankin; Michael D Kogan; Marshalyn Yeargin-Allsopp; Susanna Visser; Deborah Rosenberg Journal: Ann Epidemiol Date: 2016-03-22 Impact factor: 3.797
Authors: Jill L Chang; Mirrah Bashir; Christiana Santiago; Kathryn Farrow; Camille Fung; Ashley S Brown; Robert W Dettman; Maria L V Dizon Journal: Dev Neurosci Date: 2018-11-14 Impact factor: 2.984
Authors: Jamie O Lo; Victoria H J Roberts; Matthias C Schabel; Xiaojie Wang; Terry K Morgan; Zheng Liu; Colin Studholme; Christopher D Kroenke; Antonio E Frias Journal: Reprod Sci Date: 2017-03-23 Impact factor: 3.060
Authors: Nir Melamed; Ahmet Baschat; Yoav Yinon; Apostolos Athanasiadis; Federico Mecacci; Francesc Figueras; Vincenzo Berghella; Amala Nazareth; Muna Tahlak; H David McIntyre; Fabrício Da Silva Costa; Anne B Kihara; Eran Hadar; Fionnuala McAuliffe; Mark Hanson; Ronald C Ma; Rachel Gooden; Eyal Sheiner; Anil Kapur; Hema Divakar; Diogo Ayres-de-Campos; Liran Hiersch; Liona C Poon; John Kingdom; Roberto Romero; Moshe Hod Journal: Int J Gynaecol Obstet Date: 2021-03 Impact factor: 3.561
Authors: Atul Malhotra; Michael Ditchfield; Michael C Fahey; Margie Castillo-Melendez; Beth J Allison; Graeme R Polglase; Euan M Wallace; Ryan Hodges; Graham Jenkin; Suzanne L Miller Journal: Pediatr Res Date: 2017-05-17 Impact factor: 3.756
Authors: Benjamin Thompson; Christopher J D McKinlay; Arijit Chakraborty; Nicola S Anstice; Robert J Jacobs; Nabin Paudel; Tzu-Ying Yu; Judith M Ansell; Trecia A Wouldes; Jane E Harding Journal: Neurosci Lett Date: 2017-08-31 Impact factor: 3.046
Authors: Lily Van; Nancy J Butcher; Gregory Costain; Lucas Ogura; Eva W C Chow; Anne S Bassett Journal: Genet Med Date: 2015-06-18 Impact factor: 8.822
Authors: David J Harrison; Hugo D J Creeth; Hannah R Tyson; Raquel Boque-Sastre; Susan Hunter; Dominic M Dwyer; Anthony R Isles; Rosalind M John Journal: Hum Mol Genet Date: 2021-09-15 Impact factor: 6.150