4.3 Article

Iron deficiency and infant motor development

期刊

EARLY HUMAN DEVELOPMENT
卷 84, 期 7, 页码 479-485

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2007.12.009

关键词

iron deficiency; infant; motor development

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Iron deficiency (ID) during early development impairs myelination and basal ganglia function in animal models. Aims: To examine the effects of iron deficiency anemia (IDA) and iron deficiency (ID) without anemia on infant motor skills that are likely related to myelination and basal ganglia function. Study design: Observational study. Subjects: Full-term inner-city African-American 9- to 10-month-old infants who were free of acute or chronic health problems with iron status indicators ranging from IDA to iron sufficiency (n = 106). Criteria for final iron status classification were met by 77 of these infants: 28 IDA, 28 non-anemic iron-deficient (NA ID), and 21 iron-sufficient (IS). Outcome measures: Gross motor developmental milestones, Peabody Developmental Motor Scale, Infant Neurological International Battery (INFANIB), motor quality factor of the Bayley Behavioral Rating Scale, and a sequential/bi-manual. coordination toy retrieval task. General linear model analyses tested for linear effects of iron status group and thresholds for effects. Results: There were linear effects of iron status on developmental milestones, Peabody gross motor (suggestive trend), INFANIB standing item, motor quality, and toy retrieval. The threshold for effects was ID with or without anemia for developmental milestones, INFANIB standing item, and motor quality and IDA for toy retrieval. Conclusions: Using a comprehensive and sensitive assessment of motor development, this study found poorer motor function in ID infants with and without anemia. Poorer motor function among non-anemic ID infants is particularly concerning, since ID without anemia is not detected by common screening procedures and is more widespread than IDA. (C) 2008 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. 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

4.3
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