4.5 Article

Predictors of the risk of cognitive deficiency in very preterm infants: the EPIPAGE prospective cohort

期刊

ACTA PAEDIATRICA
卷 100, 期 3, 页码 370-378

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/j.1651-2227.2010.02064.x

关键词

Cognitive deficiency; Predictor; Very preterm infant

资金

  1. INSERM (French National Institute of Health and Medical Research)
  2. Directorate General for Health of the Ministry for Social Affairs
  3. Medical Research Foundation
  4. French Department of Health [AOM01117]
  5. La Fondation Motrice
  6. Ile-de-France Region
  7. Merck Sharp
  8. Dohme-Chibret

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aim: To assess cerebral lesions and other medical as well as social characteristics as predictors of risk of mild and severe cognitive deficiencies in very preterm infants. Methods: As part of the EPIPAGE population-based prospective cohort study, perinatal data and cognitive outcome at 5 years of age were recorded for 1503 infants born before 33 weeks of gestation in nine regions of France in 1997. Mild cognitive deficiency was defined as a Mental Processing Composite score on the Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children test of between 70 and 84, and severe cognitive deficiency as a score of < 70. Results: After controlling for cerebral lesions and other medical as well as social factors, low parental socio-economic status and lack of breastfeeding were significant predictors of mild and severe cognitive deficiencies, whereas presence of cerebral lesions, being small for gestational age and having a large number of siblings were predictors of severe cognitive deficiency. Conclusion: Predictors of poor cognitive outcome in very preterm infants are low social status, lack of breastfeeding, presence of cerebral lesions on ultrasound scan, being born small for gestational age and having a high number of siblings. Social factors predicted both mild and severe cognitive deficiencies, whereas medical factors predicted mostly severe cognitive deficiencies.

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