4.6 Review

Risk Factor Models for Neurodevelopmental Outcomes in Children Born Very Preterm or With Very Low Birth Weight: A Systematic Review of Methodology and Reporting

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY
卷 185, 期 7, 页码 601-612

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/aje/kww135

关键词

data reporting; development; preterm infants; prognosis; research methodology; risk factors; systematic reviews; very low birth weight

资金

  1. National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), United Kingdom
  2. MRC [G1002276, G0401525, MR/J01107X/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  3. Medical Research Council [MR/J01107X/1, G0401525, G1002276] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The prediction of long-term outcomes in surviving infants born very preterm (VPT) or with very low birth weight (VLBW) is necessary to guide clinical management, provide information to parents, and help target and evaluate interventions. There is a large body of literature describing risk factor models for neurodevelopmental outcomes in VPT/VLBW children, yet few, if any, have been developed for use in routine clinical practice or adopted for use in research studies or policy evaluation. We sought to systematically review the methods and reporting of studies that have developed a multivariable risk factor model for neurodevelopment in surviving VPT/VLBW children. We searched the MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO databases from January 1, 1990, to June 1, 2014, and identified 78 studies reporting 222 risk factor models. Most studies presented risk factor analyses that were not intended to be used for prediction, confirming that there is a dearth of specifically designed prognostic modeling studies for long-term outcomes in surviving VPT/VLBW children. We highlight the strengths and weaknesses of the research methodology and reporting to date, and provide recommendations for the design and analysis of future studies seeking to analyze risk prediction or develop prognostic models for VPT/VLBW children.

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

4.6
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