Al-Haddad Benjamin J S, Olson Elisabeth, Reardon Erin, Bonney Emmanuel
Department of Pediatrics, University of Minnesota Twin Cities, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA
University of Minnesota Masonic Institute for the Developing Brain, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA.
BMJ Glob Health. 2025 Apr 2;10(4):e017683. doi: 10.1136/bmjgh-2024-017683.
With global improvements in neonatal survival, more small and sick newborns in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) are at increased risk of neurodevelopmental disability and delay. While there is increased recognition of the importance of early identification of neurodevelopmental differences and timely initiation of therapy, little is known about standardised neonatal neurodevelopmental screening tools in these settings.
We performed a systematic review to determine what standardised neurodevelopmental assessments had been used in LMICs for neonates before 44 weeks corrected gestational age and published in the literature. We excluded short-term clinical assessments designed for specific pathologies. We performed the search across seven databases, screened studies for eligibility and inclusion and extracted bibliographic data, country, patient characteristics, assessments and study aims. Results were summarised in tabular and graphical presentation.
There were 2477 records screened, yielding 67 studies for inclusion. Studies in Asian countries made up 65.7%, while Latin America and Africa made up 19.4% and 16.4%, respectively. Physicians and paramedical staff performed the screening assessments in only 16.4% of studies, and 92.5% of studies used inpatient recruitment. The Neonatal Behavioural Neurological Assessment (25.4%) was the most frequently used screening tool followed by the General Movements Assessment (22.4%), the Hammersmith Neonatal Neurological Examination/Dubowitz (16.4%) and the Neonatal Behavioural Assessment Scale (10.4%).
We did not identify any one neonatal neurodevelopmental screening assessment that is rapid, globally validated, identifies targets for intervention, has high predictive prognostic value and does not require neonatal or kinesiologic expertise or uncommon equipment. Such an assessment, in concert with evidence-based intervention, therapeutic delivery platforms, established referral pathways and trained personnel would improve functional outcomes for high-risk small and sick neonates in LMICs.
随着全球新生儿存活率的提高,低收入和中等收入国家(LMICs)中越来越多的体弱多病的新生儿面临神经发育残疾和发育迟缓的风险增加。虽然人们越来越认识到早期识别神经发育差异和及时开始治疗的重要性,但对于这些环境下的标准化新生儿神经发育筛查工具却知之甚少。
我们进行了一项系统综述,以确定在矫正胎龄44周之前,低收入和中等收入国家用于新生儿的标准化神经发育评估方法,并已发表在文献中。我们排除了针对特定病理情况的短期临床评估。我们在七个数据库中进行了检索,筛选研究的 eligibility 和纳入情况,并提取书目数据、国家、患者特征、评估和研究目的。结果以表格和图形形式呈现。
共筛选了2477条记录,纳入67项研究。亚洲国家的研究占65.7%,而拉丁美洲和非洲分别占19.4%和16.4%。只有16.4%的研究由医生和辅助医疗人员进行筛查评估,92.5%的研究采用住院招募。新生儿行为神经评估(25.4%)是最常用的筛查工具,其次是全身运动评估(22.4%)、哈默史密斯新生儿神经检查/杜波维茨检查(16.4%)和新生儿行为评估量表(10.4%)。
我们没有发现任何一种新生儿神经发育筛查评估方法是快速的、经过全球验证的、能确定干预目标的、具有高预测预后价值的,且不需要新生儿或运动学专业知识或不常见设备。这样一种评估方法,与循证干预、治疗提供平台、既定的转诊途径和训练有素的人员相结合,将改善低收入和中等收入国家高危体弱多病新生儿的功能结局。