Krystal Hay1, MaryAnn Nelin1, Helen Carey1, Olena Chorna1, Melissa Moore-Clingenpeel Ma Mas2, Nathalie Maitre3. 1. Center for Perinatal Research and Department of Pediatrics at Nationwide Children's Hospital, Columbus, Ohio. 2. Biostatistics Core, Research Institute Nationwide Children's Hospital. 3. Center for Perinatal Research and Department of Pediatrics at Nationwide Children's Hospital, Columbus, Ohio; Department of Hearing and Speech Sciences, Vanderbilt Kennedy Center, Nashville, Tennessee. Electronic address: Nathalie.maitre@nationwidechildrens.org.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Hammersmith Infant Neurological Examination is one of several useful tools for early identification of cerebral palsy; however, cut-off scores for cerebral palsy do not consistently distinguish infants with hemiplegia from those typically developing. We hypothesized that use of an asymmetry score, in addition to the assessment's standard total cutoff score, could remedy this problem in a clinical setting. METHODS: This retrospective study of a neonatal intensive care follow-up program with consistent clinical use of the Hammersmith Infant Neurological Examination matched infants with a diagnosis of cerebral palsy to infants without motor delays or evidence of neurodevelopmental impairments. Groups had same corrected and gestational ages at Hammersmith Infant Neurological Examination assessment. Asymmetry presence was recorded. RESULTS: Of 74 infants with cerebral palsy, 28 had quadriplegia, 11 had diplegia, and 35 had hemiplegia. Median total Hammersmith Infant Neurological Examination and asymmetry scores for hemiplegia were 57.5 and 10 versus 76 and 0 for those without cerebral palsy. Sensitivity and specificity to distinguish hemiplegia from typical development by combining a total Hammersmith Infant Neurological Examination score less than 63 and an asymmetry score greater than 5 were 91.8% and 100%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In a clinical setting, combining total Hammersmith Infant Neurological Examination and asymmetry scores can help providers differentiate infants with hemiplegia from those typically developing.
BACKGROUND: The Hammersmith Infant Neurological Examination is one of several useful tools for early identification of cerebral palsy; however, cut-off scores for cerebral palsy do not consistently distinguish infants with hemiplegia from those typically developing. We hypothesized that use of an asymmetry score, in addition to the assessment's standard total cutoff score, could remedy this problem in a clinical setting. METHODS: This retrospective study of a neonatal intensive care follow-up program with consistent clinical use of the Hammersmith Infant Neurological Examination matched infants with a diagnosis of cerebral palsy to infants without motor delays or evidence of neurodevelopmental impairments. Groups had same corrected and gestational ages at Hammersmith Infant Neurological Examination assessment. Asymmetry presence was recorded. RESULTS: Of 74 infants with cerebral palsy, 28 had quadriplegia, 11 had diplegia, and 35 had hemiplegia. Median total Hammersmith Infant Neurological Examination and asymmetry scores for hemiplegia were 57.5 and 10 versus 76 and 0 for those without cerebral palsy. Sensitivity and specificity to distinguish hemiplegia from typical development by combining a total Hammersmith Infant Neurological Examination score less than 63 and an asymmetry score greater than 5 were 91.8% and 100%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In a clinical setting, combining total Hammersmith Infant Neurological Examination and asymmetry scores can help providers differentiate infants with hemiplegia from those typically developing.
Authors: Iona Novak; Cathy Morgan; Lars Adde; James Blackman; Roslyn N Boyd; Janice Brunstrom-Hernandez; Giovanni Cioni; Diane Damiano; Johanna Darrah; Ann-Christin Eliasson; Linda S de Vries; Christa Einspieler; Michael Fahey; Darcy Fehlings; Donna M Ferriero; Linda Fetters; Simona Fiori; Hans Forssberg; Andrew M Gordon; Susan Greaves; Andrea Guzzetta; Mijna Hadders-Algra; Regina Harbourne; Angelina Kakooza-Mwesige; Petra Karlsson; Lena Krumlinde-Sundholm; Beatrice Latal; Alison Loughran-Fowlds; Nathalie Maitre; Sarah McIntyre; Garey Noritz; Lindsay Pennington; Domenico M Romeo; Roberta Shepherd; Alicia J Spittle; Marelle Thornton; Jane Valentine; Karen Walker; Robert White; Nadia Badawi Journal: JAMA Pediatr Date: 2017-09-01 Impact factor: 16.193
Authors: Ann-Christin Eliasson; Anna Ullenhag; Ulla Wahlström; Lena Krumlinde-Sundholm Journal: Dev Med Child Neurol Date: 2016-06-08 Impact factor: 5.449
Authors: Peter Rosenbaum; Nigel Paneth; Alan Leviton; Murray Goldstein; Martin Bax; Diane Damiano; Bernard Dan; Bo Jacobsson Journal: Dev Med Child Neurol Suppl Date: 2007-02
Authors: Karl C K Kuban; Elizabeth N Allred; T Michael O'Shea; Nigel Paneth; Marcello Pagano; Olaf Dammann; Alan Leviton; Adré Du Plessis; Sjirk J Westra; Cindy R Miller; Haim Bassan; Kalpathy Krishnamoorthy; Joseph Junewick; Nicholas Olomu; Elaine Romano; Joanna Seibert; Steve Engelke; Padmani Karna; Daniel Batton; Sunila E O'Connor; Cecelia E Keller Journal: J Child Neurol Date: 2009-01 Impact factor: 1.987
Authors: Julia Mazzarella; Mike McNally; Daniel Richie; Ajit M W Chaudhari; John A Buford; Xueliang Pan; Jill C Heathcock Journal: Sensors (Basel) Date: 2020-12-19 Impact factor: 3.576
Authors: Carly R Luke; Katherine Benfer; Leeann Mick-Ramsamy; Robert S Ware; Natasha Reid; Arend F Bos; Margot Bosanquet; Roslyn N Boyd Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2022-01-07 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Tathiana Ghisi de Souza; Eduardo Bagne; Renata Mizani; Ali Abdalla Rotob; Rosa Estela Gazeta; Ana Laura de Sene Amâncio Zara; Cohorte Zika Virus Jundiaí; Saulo Duarte Passos Journal: Medicine (Baltimore) Date: 2022-06-24 Impact factor: 1.817