4.4 Article Proceedings Paper

Encephalopathy as a predictor of magnetic resonance imaging abnormalities in asphyxiated newborns

期刊

PEDIATRIC NEUROLOGY
卷 28, 期 5, 页码 342-346

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/S0887-8994(03)00015-8

关键词

-

资金

  1. NCRR NIH HHS [M01 RR 01271] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NINDS NIH HHS [NS 35902] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Basal ganglia abnormalities on magnetic resonance imaging predict neurodevelopmental impairment in newborns with perinatal depression. We determined the value of a clinical encephalopathy score as a predictor of abnormal magnetic resonance imaging results in newborns with perinatal depression. We assigned a neonatal encephalopathy score to 101 newborns. The encephalopathy score, based on alertness, feeding, tone, respiratory status, reflexes, and seizure activity, was assigned once daily. The maximum score from the first 3 days of life was compared with abnormal magnetic resonance imaging results present globally or solely in the basal ganglia. Eighty-one percent of patients manifested abnormalities on any magnetic resonance imaging sequence, and 37% manifested abnormalities in the basal ganglia alone. The encephalopathy score correlated well with magnetic resonance imaging abnormalities in the basal ganglia (Spearman Rho = 0.335, P < 0.0001). Newborns with mild and severe encephalopathy had likelihood ratios of 0.41 and 7.4, respectively, for abnormal basal ganglia magnetic resonance imaging results. Newborns with moderate encephalopathy (composing 47% of the cohort) manifested basal ganglia abnormalities with a likelihood ratio of 0.785. Severe clinical encephalopathy correlates with abnormal basal ganglia magnetic resonance imaging results, and mild encephalopathy correlates with a normal magnetic resonance imaging result. However, standard clinical criteria do not alter the prior risk of abnormal basal ganglia magnetic resonance imaging results for newborns with moderate encephalopathy. (C) 2003 by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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

4.4
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