Neurodevelopmental outcome descriptions in cohorts of extremely preterm children

A Decade of Efforts to Add Value to Child Health Research Practices

OBJECTIVE

To identify practices that add value to improve the design, conduct, and reporting of child health research and reduce research waste.

STUDY DESIGN

In order to categorize the contributions of members of Standards for Research (StaR) in Child Health network, we developed a novel Child Health Improving Research Practices (CHIRP) framework comprised of 5 domains meant to counteract avoidable child health research waste and improve quality: 1) address research questions relevant to children, their families, clinicians, and researchers; 2) apply appropriate research design, conduct and analysis; 3) ensure efficient research oversight and regulation; 4) Provide accessible research protocols and reports; and 5) develop unbiased and usable research reports, including 17 responsible research practice recommendations. All child health research relevant publications by the 48 original StaR standards' authors over the last decade were identified, and main topic areas were categorized using this framework.

RESULTS

A total of 247 publications were included in the final sample: 100 publications (41%) in domain 1 (3 recommendations), 77 publications (31%) in domain 2 (3), 35 publications (14%) in domain 3 (4), 20 publications (8%) in domain 4 (4), and 15 publications (6%) in domain 5 (3). We identified readily implementable "responsible" research practices to counter child health research waste and improve quality, especially in the areas of patients and families' engagement throughout the research process, developing Core Outcome Sets, and addressing ethics and regulatory oversight issues.

CONCLUSION

While most of the practices are readily implementable, increased awareness of methodological issues and wider guideline uptake is needed to improve child health research. The CHIRP Framework can be used to guide responsible research practices that add value to child health research.

Heterogeneity and Gaps in Reporting Primary Outcomes From Neonatal Trials

OBJECTIVES

Clear outcome reporting in clinical trials facilitates accurate interpretation and application of findings and improves evidence-informed decision-making. Standardized core outcomes for reporting neonatal trials have been developed, but little is known about how primary outcomes are reported in neonatal trials. Our aim was to identify strengths and weaknesses of primary outcome reporting in recent neonatal trials.

METHODS

Neonatal trials including ≥100 participants/arm published between 2015 and 2020 with at least 1 primary outcome from a neonatal core outcome set were eligible. Raters recruited from Cochrane Neonatal were trained to evaluate the trials' primary outcome reporting completeness using relevant items from Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials 2010 and Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials-Outcomes 2022 pertaining to the reporting of the definition, selection, measurement, analysis, and interpretation of primary trial outcomes. All trial reports were assessed by 3 raters. Assessments and discrepancies between raters were analyzed.

RESULTS

Outcome-reporting evaluations were completed for 36 included neonatal trials by 39 raters. Levels of outcome reporting completeness were highly variable. All trials fully reported the primary outcome measurement domain, statistical methods used to compare treatment groups, and participant flow. Yet, only 28% of trials fully reported on minimal important difference, 24% on outcome data missingness, 66% on blinding of the outcome assessor, and 42% on handling of outcome multiplicity.

CONCLUSIONS

Primary outcome reporting in neonatal trials often lacks key information needed for interpretability of results, knowledge synthesis, and evidence-informed decision-making in neonatology. Use of existing outcome-reporting guidelines by trialists, journals, and peer reviewers will enhance transparent reporting of neonatal trials.

Paper I: Heterogeneous use of registry data for participant identification and primary outcome ascertainment is found in registry-based randomized controlled trials: A scoping review

OBJECTIVES

Registry-based randomized controlled trials (RRCTs) have potential to address limitations of traditional clinical trials. To describe their current use, information on planned and published RRCTs was identified and synthesized.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

A scoping review of published RRCT protocols and reports was conducted. Articles published between 2010 and 2021 identified from electronic database searching, a recent review of RRCTs, and targeted searching for recent RRCT protocols (2018-2021) were screened. Data on trial data sources, types of primary outcomes, and how these primary outcomes were described, selected, and reported were extracted.

RESULTS

Ninety RRCT articles (77 reports; 13 protocols) were included. Forty nine (54%) used or planned to rely on registry data for their trial, 26 (29%) used both registry and additional data, and 15 (17%) used the registry solely for recruitment. Primary outcomes were routinely collected from the registry for 66 articles (73%). Only 28 articles (31%) described any methods to promote outcome data quality during or after data collection. Core outcome sets were not used in any of the trials.

CONCLUSION

With improvements in registry design, outcome selection, measurement, and reporting, future RRCTs may deliver on promises of efficient, high-quality trials that address clinically relevant questions.

Biomedical and Psychosocial Determinants of Early Neurodevelopment After Preterm Birth

Prematurity and them related conditions are subject of scientific discussion. From the point of view optimization of postpartum processes, timely assessment of individual biomedical and psychosocial conditions and management of preventive intervention is very important, because of its linkage to issues of preterm infants and their families in long-term perspectives. The goal of the literature review is to bring together existing body of knowledge on biomedical, psychological, and social issues of premature infants related to early neurodevelopment in order to achieve better systemic vision. For this goal scientific articles related to neurological development delay of premature children and the possibilities of their timely identification were processed using electronic scientific search systems. Diagnostic tools to identify at-risk children and early intervention programs discussed in the article, significantly improve the chances of premature child development. In the article Introduced materials are to support: Clinicians to make correct decisions regarding important components of premature infants; Healthcare policy makers to plan targeted programs and activities; Public to better understand prematurity issues, especially in case of prematurely-born family members.

Identifying research priorities in newborn medicine: a Delphi study of parents' views

OBJECTIVE

Neonatal conditions can have lifelong implications for the health and well-being of children and families. Traditionally, parents and patients have not been included in shaping the agenda for research and yet they are profoundly affected by the neonatal experience and its consequences. This study aimed to identify consensus research priorities among parents/patients of newborn medicine in Australia and New Zealand.

DESIGN

Parents/patients with experience of neonatal care in Australia and New Zealand completed an online Delphi study to identify research priorities across four epochs (neonatal admission, early childhood, childhood/adolescence and adulthood). Parents/patients first generated key challenges in each of these epochs. Through inductive thematic analysis, recurring topics were identified and research questions generated. Parents/patients rated these questions in terms of priorities and a list of questions consistently rated as high priority was identified.

PARTICIPANTS

393 individuals participated, 388 parents whose children had received neonatal care and 5 adults who had received neonatal care themselves.

RESULTS

Many research questions were identified as high-priority across the lifespan. These included how to best support parental mental health, relationships between parents and neonatal clinical staff (including involvement in care and communication), bonding and the parent-child relationship, improving neonatal medical care and addressing long-term impacts on child health and neurodevelopment.

CONCLUSIONS

Parents with experience of newborn medicine have strong, clear and recurring research priorities spanning neonatal care practices, psychological and other impacts on families, and impacts on child development. These findings should guide neonatal research efforts. In addition to generating new knowledge, improved translation of existing evidence to parents is also needed.

Global prevalence of long-term neurodevelopmental impairment following extremely preterm birth: a systematic literature review

Objective

Neurodevelopmental impairment (NDI) is a major complication of extreme prematurity. This systematic review was conducted to summarize the worldwide long-term prevalence of NDI associated with extreme prematurity.

Methods

Embase and MEDLINE databases were searched for epidemiologic and observational/real-world studies, published in English between 2011 and 2016, reporting long-term prevalence of NDI (occurring from 1 year) among extremely preterm infants born at gestational age (GA) ≤28 weeks.

Results

Of 2406 articles identified through searches, 69 met the protocol NDI definition (24 North America, 25 Europe, 20 Rest of World). Prevalence of any severity NDI in North America was 8%–59% at 18 months to 2 years, and 11%–37% at 2–5 years; prevalence of moderate NDI in Europe was 10%–13% at 18 months to 2 years, 3% at 2–5 years, and 9%–19% at ≥5 years; prevalence of any NDI in Rest of World was 15%–61% at 18 months to 2 years, and 42% at 2–5 years (no North America/Rest of World studies reported any NDI at ≥5 years). A trend toward higher prevalence of NDI with lower GA at birth was observed.

Conclusions

Extreme prematurity has a significant long-term worldwide impact on neurodevelopmental outcomes.

Neurodevelopmental outcomes at age 5 among children born preterm: EPIPAGE-2 cohort study

OBJECTIVES

To describe neurodevelopment at age 5 among children born preterm.

DESIGN

Population based cohort study, EPIPAGE-2.

SETTING

France, 2011.

PARTICIPANTS

4441 children aged 5½ born at 24-26, 27-31, and 32-34 weeks MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Severe/moderate neurodevelopmental disabilities, defined as severe/moderate cerebral palsy (Gross Motor Function Classification System (GMFCS) ≥2), or unilateral or bilateral blindness or deafness, or full scale intelligence quotient less than minus two standard deviations (Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence, 4th edition). Mild neurodevelopmental disabilities, defined as mild cerebral palsy (GMFCS-1), or visual disability ≥3.2/10 and <5/10, or hearing loss <40 dB, or full scale intelligence quotient (minus two to minus one standard deviation) or developmental coordination disorders (Movement Assessment Battery for Children, 2nd edition, total score less than or equal to the fifth centile), or behavioural difficulties (strengths and difficulties questionnaire, total score greater than or equal to the 90th centile), school assistance (mainstream class with support or special school), complex developmental interventions, and parents' concerns about development. The distributions of the scores in contemporary term born children were used as reference. Results are given after multiple imputation as percentages of outcome measures with exact binomial 95% confidence intervals.

RESULTS

Among 4441 participants, 3083 (69.4%) children were assessed. Rates of severe/moderate neurodevelopmental disabilities were 28% (95% confidence interval 23.4% to 32.2%), 19% (16.8% to 20.7%), and 12% (9.2% to 14.0%) and of mild disabilities were 38.5% (33.7% to 43.4%), 36% (33.4% to 38.1%), and 34% (30.2% to 37.4%) at 24-26, 27-31, and 32-34 weeks, respectively. Assistance at school was used by 27% (22.9% to 31.7%), 14% (12.1% to 15.9%), and 7% (4.4% to 9.0%) of children at 24-26, 27-31, and 32-34 weeks, respectively. About half of the children born at 24-26 weeks (52% (46.4% to 57.3%)) received at least one developmental intervention which decreased to 26% (21.8% to 29.4%) for those born at 32-34 weeks. Behaviour was the concern most commonly reported by parents. Rates of neurodevelopment disabilities increased as gestational age decreased and were higher in families with low socioeconomic status.

CONCLUSIONS

In this large cohort of children born preterm, rates of severe/moderate neurodevelopmental disabilities remained high in each gestational age group. Proportions of children receiving school assistance or complex developmental interventions might have a significant impact on educational and health organisations. Parental concerns about behaviour warrant attention.

How to use the Bayley Scales of Infant and Toddler Development

The Bayley Scales of Infant and Toddler Development-Third Edition (Bayley-III) is a gold standard series of behavioural assessments used by clinicians and researchers to assess the developmental functioning of young children. The rigorous psychometric properties of the tool are attributed to the carefully standardised normative sample and quantitative scoring system. It is a common end-point assessment used in neonatal trials and is routinely used in a clinical setting to assess the development of children at risk of delay. Incidence of developmental delay is higher in clinical populations such as those born preterm or with complications such as neonatal encephalopathy. Early identification of delay is critical as early intervention is most effective in minimising impairment; therefore, routine assessment of developmental outcomes is recommended, particularly among high-risk populations.

Using different definitions affected the reported prevalence of neurodevelopmental impairment in children born very preterm

AIM

We investigated the impact of varying definitions on the prevalence of neurodevelopmental impairment (NDI) in children born very preterm at 6.5 years of age.

METHODS

Cognitive development and neurosensory impairments were assessed in 91 children (40/51 girls/boys) born <32 gestational weeks, in 2004-2007 in Uppsala county, Sweden. The results were compared with data from a reference group of 67 children born full term. The prevalence of NDI in the present cohort was reported according to definitions used by seven contemporary studies of children born very or extremely preterm.

RESULTS

The prevalence of severe NDI varied from 2% to 23% depending on the definition used. The prevalence of cognitive impairment varied from 2% (-3 SD according to test norms) to 16% (-2 SD according to control group), the prevalence of cerebral palsy from 0% (severe) to 9% (any) and the prevalence of severe visual impairment from 0% (blindness) to 1% (visual acuity < 0.3). There were no children with severe hearing impairment.

CONCLUSION

A high variability in definitions affects the reporting of the prevalence of NDI in long-term follow-up studies of very or extremely preterm born children. There is a need for a better consensus to enable comparisons across studies.

Primary outcome reporting in adolescent depression clinical trials needs standardization

BACKGROUND

Evidence-based health care is informed by results of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and their syntheses in meta-analyses. When the trial outcomes measured are not clearly described in trial publications, knowledge synthesis, translation, and decision-making may be impeded. While heterogeneity in outcomes measured in adolescent major depressive disorder (MDD) RCTs has been described, the comprehensiveness of outcome reporting is unknown. This study aimed to assess the reporting of primary outcomes in RCTs evaluating treatments for adolescent MDD.

METHODS

RCTs evaluating treatment interventions in adolescents with a diagnosis of MDD published between 2008 and 2017 specifying a single primary outcome were eligible for outcome reporting assessment. Outcome reporting assessment was done independently in duplicate using a comprehensive checklist of 58 reporting items. Primary outcome information provided in each RCT publication was scored as "fully reported", "partially reported", or "not reported" for each checklist item, as applicable.

RESULTS

Eighteen of 42 identified articles were found to have a discernable single primary outcome and were included for outcome reporting assessment. Most trials (72%) did not fully report on over half of the 58 checklist items. Items describing masking of outcome assessors, timing and frequency of outcome assessment, and outcome analyses were fully reported in over 70% of trials. Items less frequently reported included outcome measurement instrument properties (ranging from 6 to 17%), justification of timing and frequency of outcome assessment (6%), and justification of criteria used for clinically significant differences (17%). The overall comprehensiveness of reporting appeared stable over time.

CONCLUSIONS

Heterogeneous reporting exists in published adolescent MDD RCTs, with frequent omissions of key details about their primary outcomes. These omissions may impair interpretability, replicability, and synthesis of RCTs that inform clinical guidelines and decision-making in this field. Consensus on the minimal criteria for outcome reporting in adolescent MDD RCTs is needed.