Article Text

Download PDFPDF
School-aged neurodevelopmental outcomes for children born extremely preterm
  1. Lex W Doyle1,2,3,4,
  2. Alicia Spittle2,5,
  3. Peter J Anderson2,6,
  4. Jeanie Ling Yoong Cheong1,2
  1. 1Neonatal Services, Royal Women’s Hospital, Parkville, Victoria, Australia
  2. 2Victorian Infant Brain Studies (VIBeS), Murdoch Children’s Research Institute, Parkville, Victoria, Australia
  3. 3Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia
  4. 4Department of Paediatrics, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia
  5. 5Department of Physiotherapy, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia
  6. 6Psychological Sciences, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
  1. Correspondence to Professor Lex W Doyle, Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Royal Women's Hospital, Parkville, VIC 3052, Australia; lwd{at}unimelb.edu.au

Abstract

As survival rates for children born extremely preterm (EP, <28 weeks’ gestation) have increased with advances in perinatal and neonatal care, their long-term functioning and quality of life assume more importance. Outcomes in early childhood provide some information, but outcomes at school-age are more informative of life-long functioning. Children born EP at school-age have substantially higher rates of intellectual impairment, poorer executive, academic and motor function, more neurodevelopmental disability, and poorer health-related quality of life than do contemporaneous term-born controls. Because the rates of adverse outcomes remain unacceptably high, and particularly since some outcomes may be deteriorating rather than improving over time, new strategies to ameliorate these problems, targeting periods before, during and after birth, and throughout the lifespan, are a priority.

  • neonatology
  • epidemiology

Data availability statement

No data are available. There are no data available relevant to this review.

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Data availability statement

No data are available. There are no data available relevant to this review.

View Full Text

Footnotes

  • Correction notice This article has been amended since it was published online. In the previous version, in table 1, the upper confidence intervals for mean differences all lost their minus signs. The article has since been corrected.

  • Contributors LWD conceived and designed the study, and drafted and revised the article. AS, PJA and JLYC conceived and designed the study, and revised the article. All authors approved the final manuscript as submitted.

  • Funding Supported by grants from the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia (Centre of Clinical Research Excellence #546519; Centres of Research Excellence #1060733 and #1153176; Project Grant #108702, Leadership Fellowship #1176077 to PJA), Medical Research Future Fund (Career Development Fellowship #1141354 to JC) and the Victorian Government’s Operational Infrastructure Support Program.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Provenance and peer review Commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.