4.5 Review

Effect of early intervention in infants at very high risk of cerebral palsy: a systematic review

期刊

DEVELOPMENTAL MEDICINE AND CHILD NEUROLOGY
卷 59, 期 3, 页码 246-258

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/dmcn.13331

关键词

-

资金

  1. ZonMW
  2. Johanna Kinderfonds
  3. Stichting Rotterdams Kinderrevalidatiefonds Adriaanstichting
  4. Revalidatiefonds
  5. Phelps Stichting
  6. Revalidatie Nederland
  7. Nederlands Vereniging van Revalidatieartsen
  8. Junior Scientific Masterclass Groningen
  9. graduate school SHARE in Groningen

向作者/读者索取更多资源

AIM First, to systematically review the evidence on the effect of intervention applied during the first postnatal year in infants with or at very high risk of cerebral palsy (CP) on child and family outcome. Second, to assess whether type and dosing of intervention modify the effect of intervention. METHOD Relevant literature was identified by searching the PubMed, Embase, and CINAHL databases. Selection criteria included infants younger than 12 months corrected age with or at very high risk of CP. Methodological quality including risk of bias was scrutinized. RESULTS Thirteen papers met the inclusion criteria. Seven studies with moderate to high methodological quality were analysed in detail; they evaluated neurodevelopmental treatment only (n=2), multisensory stimulation (n=1), developmental stimulation (n=2), and multifaceted interventions consisting of a mix of developmental stimulation, support of parent- infant interaction, and neurodevelopmental treatment (n=2). The heterogeneity precluded conclusions. Yet, two suggestions emerged: (1) dosing may be critical for effectiveness; (2) multifaceted intervention may offer best opportunities for child and family. INTERPRETATION The literature on early intervention in very high-risk infants with sufficient methodological quality is limited, heterogeneous, and provides weak evidence on the effect. More studies are urgently needed. Suggestions for future research are provided.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据