Strauss R S
Department of Pediatrics, University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey-Robert Wood Johnson School of Medicine, New Brunswick 08903-0019, USA.
JAMA. 2000 Feb 2;283(5):625-32. doi: 10.1001/jama.283.5.625.
Although studies have documented cognitive impairment in children who were born small for gestational age (SGA), other studies have not demonstrated differences in IQ or other cognitive scores. The need exists for long-term studies of such children to assess functional outcomes not measurable with standardized testing.
To determine the long-term functional outcome of SGA infants.
Prospective cohort study.
A total of 14,189 full-term infants born in the United Kingdom on April 5 through 11, 1970, were studied as part of the 1970 British Birth Cohort; 1064 were SGA (birth weight less than the fifth percentile for age at term). Follow-up at 5, 10, 16, and 26 years was 93%, 80%, 72%, and 53%, respectively.
School performance and achievement, assessed at 5, 10, and 16 years; and years of education, occupational status, income, marital status, life satisfaction, disability, and height, assessed at 26 years, comparing persons born SGA with those who were not.
At 5, 10, and 16 years of age, those born SGA demonstrated small but significant deficits in academic achievement. In addition, teachers were less likely to rate those born SGA in the top 15th percentile of the class at 16 years (13% vs 20%; P<.01) and more likely to recommend special education (4.9% vs 2.3%; P<.01) compared with those born at normal birth weight (NBW). At age 26 years, adults who were SGA did not demonstrate any differences in years of education, employment, hours of work per week, marital status, or satisfaction with life. However, adults who were SGA were less likely to have professional or managerial jobs (8.7% vs 16.4%; P<.01) and reported significantly lower levels of weekly income (mean [SD], 185 [91] vs 206 [102] pound sterling; P<.01) than adults who were NBW. Adults who were SGA also reported significant height deficits compared with those who were NBW (mean [SD] z score, -0.55 [0.98] vs 0.08 [1.02]; P<.001). Similar results were also obtained after adjusting for social class, sex, region of birth, and the presence of fetal or neonatal distress.
In this cohort, adults who were born SGA had significant differences in academic achievement and professional attainment compared with adults who were NBW. However, there were no long-term social or emotional consequences of being SGA: these adults were as likely to be employed, married, and satisfied with life.
尽管有研究记录了小于胎龄儿(SGA)出生的儿童存在认知障碍,但其他研究并未显示其在智商或其他认知得分上存在差异。需要对这些儿童进行长期研究,以评估标准化测试无法衡量的功能结局。
确定小于胎龄儿的长期功能结局。
前瞻性队列研究。
作为1970年英国出生队列研究的一部分,对1970年4月5日至11日在英国出生的14,189名足月儿进行了研究;其中1064名是小于胎龄儿(出生体重低于足月时年龄的第五百分位数)。5岁、10岁、16岁和26岁时的随访率分别为93%、80%、72%和53%。
在5岁、10岁和16岁时评估学业表现和成绩;在26岁时评估受教育年限、职业状况、收入、婚姻状况、生活满意度、残疾情况和身高,比较小于胎龄儿出生者与非小于胎龄儿出生者。
在5岁、10岁和16岁时,小于胎龄儿出生者在学业成绩上表现出虽小但显著的缺陷。此外,与出生体重正常(NBW)的儿童相比,教师在16岁时将小于胎龄儿出生者评为班级前15%的可能性较小(13%对20%;P<0.01),而推荐特殊教育的可能性较大(4.9%对2.3%;P<0.01)。在26岁时,小于胎龄儿出生的成年人在受教育年限、就业、每周工作时长、婚姻状况或生活满意度方面没有表现出任何差异。然而,小于胎龄儿出生的成年人从事专业或管理工作的可能性较小(8.7%对16.4%;P<0.01),且报告的每周收入水平显著低于出生体重正常的成年人(均值[标准差],185[91]英镑对206[102]英镑;P<0.01)。与出生体重正常的成年人相比,小于胎龄儿出生的成年人还报告有显著的身高缺陷(均值[标准差]z评分,-0.55[0.98]对0.08[1.02];P<0.001)。在对社会阶层、性别、出生地区以及胎儿或新生儿窘迫情况进行调整后,也得到了类似的结果。
在这个队列中,与出生体重正常的成年人相比,小于胎龄儿出生的成年人在学业成绩和职业成就方面存在显著差异。然而,小于胎龄儿出生并没有长期的社会或情感后果:这些成年人就业、结婚和对生活满意的可能性相同。