4.6 Article

Cognitive and Academic Outcomes after Pediatric Liver Transplantation: Functional Outcomes Group (FOG) Results

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF TRANSPLANTATION
卷 11, 期 2, 页码 303-311

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-6143.2010.03363.x

关键词

Cognition disorders; learning disorders; liver transplant; neuropsychological tests; pediatric liver disease; psychological aspects of organ transplantation

资金

  1. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development [R01 HD045694]
  2. National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases of the National Institutes of Health [U01 DK061693]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This multicenter study examined prevalence of cognitive and academic delays in children following liver transplant (LT). One hundred and forty-four patients ages 5-7 and 2 years post-LT were recruited through the SPLIT consortium and administered the Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence, 3rd Edition (WPPSI-III), the Bracken Basic Concept Scale, Revised (BBCS-R), and the Wide Range Achievement Test, 4th edition (WRAT-4). Parents and teachers completed the Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function (BRIEF). Participants performed significantly below test norms on intelligence quotient (IQ) and achievement measures (Mean WPPSI-III Full Scale IQ = 94.7 +/- 13.5; WRAT-4 Reading = 92.7 +/- 17.2; WRAT-4 Math = 93.1 +/- 15.4; p < 0001). Twenty-six percent of patients (14% expected) had 'mild to moderate' IQ delays (Full Scale IQ = 71-85) and 4% (2% expected) had 'serious' delays (Full Scale IQ < 70; p < 0.0001). Reading and/or math scores were weaker than IQ in 25%, suggesting learning disability, compared to 7% expected by CDC statistics (p < 0.0001). Executive deficits were noted on the BRIEF, especially by teacher report (Global Executive Composite = 58; p < 0.001). Results suggest a higher prevalence of cognitive and academic delays and learning problems in pediatric LT recipients compared to the normal population.

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