Spittle Alicia J, Lee Katherine J, Spencer-Smith Megan, Lorefice Lucy E, Anderson Peter J, Doyle Lex W
Murdoch Childrens Research Institute, Melbourne, Australia; University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; Royal Women's Hospital, Melbourne, Australia.
Murdoch Childrens Research Institute, Melbourne, Australia; University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
PLoS One. 2015 May 13;10(5):e0125854. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0125854. eCollection 2015.
The primary aim of this study was to investigate the accuracy of the Alberta Infant Motor Scale (AIMS) and Neuro-Sensory Motor Developmental Assessment (NSMDA) over the first year of life for predicting motor impairment at 4 years in preterm children. The secondary aims were to assess the predictive value of serial assessments over the first year and when using a combination of these two assessment tools in follow-up.
Children born <30 weeks' gestation were prospectively recruited and assessed at 4, 8 and 12 months' corrected age using the AIMS and NSMDA. At 4 years' corrected age children were assessed for cerebral palsy (CP) and motor impairment using the Movement Assessment Battery for Children 2nd-edition (MABC-2). We calculated accuracy of the AIMS and NSMDA for predicting CP and MABC-2 scores ≤15th (at-risk of motor difficulty) and ≤5th centile (significant motor difficulty) for each test (AIMS and NSMDA) at 4, 8 and 12 months, for delay on one, two or all three of the time points over the first year, and finally for delay on both tests at each time point.
Accuracy for predicting motor impairment was good for each test at each age, although false positives were common. Motor impairment on the MABC-2 (scores ≤5th and ≤15th) was most accurately predicted by the AIMS at 4 months, whereas CP was most accurately predicted by the NSMDA at 12 months. In regards to serial assessments, the likelihood ratio for motor impairment increased with the number of delayed assessments. When combining both the NSMDA and AIMS the best accuracy was achieved at 4 months, although results were similar at 8 and 12 months.
Motor development during the first year of life in preterm infants assessed with the AIMS and NSMDA is predictive of later motor impairment at preschool age. However, false positives are common and therefore it is beneficial to follow-up children at high risk of motor impairment at more than one time point, or to use a combination of assessment tools.
ACTR.org.au ACTRN12606000252516.
本研究的主要目的是调查艾伯塔婴儿运动量表(AIMS)和神经感觉运动发育评估(NSMDA)在早产儿出生后第一年对预测其4岁时运动障碍的准确性。次要目的是评估第一年连续评估的预测价值,以及在随访中使用这两种评估工具组合时的预测价值。
前瞻性招募孕周小于30周的儿童,并在矫正年龄4个月、8个月和12个月时使用AIMS和NSMDA进行评估。在矫正年龄4岁时,使用儿童运动评估量表第二版(MABC-2)对儿童进行脑瘫(CP)和运动障碍评估。我们计算了AIMS和NSMDA在4个月、8个月和12个月时预测CP和MABC-2评分≤第15百分位(有运动困难风险)和≤第5百分位(严重运动困难)的准确性,第一年中一个、两个或所有三个时间点延迟时的准确性,以及最后每个时间点两种测试延迟时的准确性。
尽管假阳性很常见,但各年龄的每项测试预测运动障碍的准确性都很好。MABC-2上的运动障碍(评分≤第5和≤第15百分位)在4个月时由AIMS最准确地预测,而CP在12个月时由NSMDA最准确地预测。关于连续评估,运动障碍的似然比随着延迟评估次数的增加而增加。当同时使用NSMDA和AIMS时,4个月时准确性最高,尽管8个月和12个月时结果相似。
用AIMS和NSMDA评估的早产儿出生后第一年的运动发育可预测学龄前后期的运动障碍。然而,假阳性很常见,因此对有运动障碍高风险的儿童在多个时间点进行随访,或使用评估工具组合是有益的。
ACTR.org.au ACTRN12606000252516。