Performance of the German version of the PARCA-R questionnaire as a developmental screening tool in two-year-old very preterm infants

Comparison of parent or caregiver-completed development screening tools with Bayley Scales of Infant Development: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Parent/caregiver-completed developmental testing (PCDT) is integral to developmental care in children; however, there is limited information on its accuracy. In this systematic review, we compared the diagnostic accuracy of PCDT with concurrently administered Bayley Scales of Infant Development for detection of developmental delay (DD) in children below 4 years of age.

METHODS

We searched databases PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO and Google Scholar until November 2023. Bivariate and multiple thresholds summary receiver operating characteristics were used to obtain the summary sensitivity and specificity with 95% CIs. The Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool was used for risk of bias assessment.

RESULTS

A total of 38 studies (31 in the meta-analysis) were included. Ages and Stages Questionnaire (ASQ) and Parent Report of Children's Abilities-Revised (PARCA-R) were the most commonly evaluated PCDTs. ASQ score >2 SD below the mean had an overall sensitivity of 0.72 (0.6, 0.82) and 0.63 (0.50, 0.75) at a median specificity of 0.89 (0.82, 0.94) and 0.81 (0.76, 0.86) for diagnosing moderate to severe DD and severe DD, respectively. PARCA- R had an overall sensitivity of 0.69 (0.51, 0.83) at median specificity of 0.75 (0.64, 0.83) for predicting severe DD. Participant selection bias and partial verification bias were found in over 50% of the studies. The certainty of evidence was low for the studied outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

The most commonly studied parental tools, ASQ and PARCA-R, have moderate to low sensitivity and moderate specificity for detecting DD in young children. High risk of bias and heterogeneity in the available data can potentially impact the interpretation of our results.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42021268629.

Early childhood development monitoring during the first thousand days: Investigating the relationship between the developmental surveillance instrument and standardized scales

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to investigate the relationship between the Developmental Surveillance Instrument -Instrumento de Vigilância do Desenvolvimento (IVD), found in the Child's Booklet Caderneta da Crianca (CC), and standardized scales: Alberta Infant Motor Scale (AIMS) and Denver Developmental Screening Test (Denver-II).

METHODS

Employing an exploratory observational approach, we adopted a prospective longitudinal design with a quantitative approach. The convenience sample included 83 Brazilian children born between May and August 2019 in a public hospital. Of the total, 45 (54.22 %) were male, and 38 (45.78 %) were female. Developmental screening utilized the IVD, AIMS and Denver-II tests. Comparative analysis between groups employed Mann-Whitney or Kruskal-Wallis tests for numerical variables and chi-square/Fisher tests for categorical variables, with a significance level of 5 % (p < 0.05).

RESULTS

A significant correlation was observed between the IVD and the AIMS and Denver-II tests (p < 0.001) at months 1, 4, and 8.

CONCLUSION

The presence of a robust correlation between the IVD and the AIMS and Denver-II tests at months 1, 4, and 8 implies that the IVD in the Child's Booklet serves as a reliable and effective indicator for screening infant development during this critical period. Detecting issues early through these methods is crucial to ensure the well-being of children, allowing for appropriate interventions as needed.

Cerebral oximetry monitoring versus usual care for extremely preterm infants: a study protocol for the 2-year follow-up of the SafeBoosC-III randomised clinical trial

BACKGROUND

In the SafeBoosC-III trial, treatment guided by cerebral oximetry monitoring for the first 72 hours after birth did not reduce the incidence of death or severe brain injury in extremely preterm infants at 36 weeks' postmenstrual age, as compared with usual care. Despite an association between severe brain injury diagnosed in the neonatal period and later neurodevelopmental disability, this relationship is not always strong. The objective of the SafeBoosC-III follow-up study is to assess mortality, neurodevelopmental disability, or any harm in trial participants at 2 years of corrected age. One important challenge is the lack of funding for local costs for a trial-specific assessment.

METHODS

Of the 1601 infants randomised in the SafeBoosC-III trial, 1276 infants were alive at 36 weeks' postmenstrual age and will potentially be available for the 2-year follow-up. Inclusion criteria will be enrollment in a neonatal intensive care unit taking part in the follow-up study and parental consent if required by local regulations. We aim to collect data from routine follow-up programmes between the ages of 18 and 30 months of corrected age. If no routine follow-up has been conducted, we will collect informal assessments from other health care records from the age of at least 12 months. A local co-investigator blinded to group allocation will classify outcomes based on these records. We will supplement this with parental questionnaires including the Parent Report of Children's Abilities-Revised. There will be two co-primary outcomes: the composite of death or moderate or severe neurodevelopmental disability and mean Bayley-III/IV cognitive score. We will use a 3-tier model for prioritisation, based on the quality of data. This approach has been chosen to minimise loss to follow-up assuming that little data is better than no data at all.

DISCUSSION

Follow-up at the age of 2 years is important for intervention trials in the newborn period as only time can show real benefits and harms later in childhood. To decrease the risk of generalisation and data-driven biased conclusions, we present a detailed description of the methodology for the SafeBoosC-III follow-up study. As funding is limited, a pragmatic approach is necessary.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05134116 . Registered on 24 November 2021.

Methods for Constructing Normalised Reference Scores: An Application for Assessing Child Development at 24 Months of Age

The use of the lambda-mu-sigma (LMS) method for estimating centiles and producing reference ranges has received much interest in clinical practice, especially for assessing growth in childhood. However, this method may not be directly applicable where measures are based on a score calculated from question response categories that is bounded within finite intervals, for example, in psychometrics. In such cases, the main assumption of normality of the conditional distribution of the transformed response measurement is violated due to the presence of ceiling (and floor) effects, leading to biased fitted centiles when derived using the common LMS method. This paper describes the methodology for constructing reference intervals when the response variable is bounded and explores different distribution families for the centile estimation, using a score derived from a parent-completed assessment of cognitive and language development in 24 month-old children. Results indicated that the z-scores, and thus the extracted centiles, improved when kurtosis was also modeled and that the ceiling effect was addressed with the use of the inflated binomial distribution. Therefore, the selection of the appropriate distribution when constructing centile curves is crucial.

Observational study on the neonatal outcome during the COVID-19 pandemic in Germany

AIM

We aimed to determine stillbirth, preterm birth, perinatal complications, and the developmental outcome of children born preterm during the COVID-19 pandemic in Germany.

METHODS

National data from the perinatal survey of preterm and term infants born in 2017-2020 between 22 March and 31 December were evaluated. Neurodevelopment of preterm infants at 2 years corrected age was tested with the Parent Report of Children's Abilities-Revised questionnaire and by clinical testing with Bayley scales, either before or during the COVID-19 pandemic. Statistical significance was calculated using a Pearson's chi-square-independence test and a linear regression model.

RESULTS

In 2020, there was an increase of stillbirths of 0.02% (p = 0.01) and a decrease in preterm births by 0.38% (p < 0.001). No changes were found in a representative subgroup of infants with regard to neurodevelopmental scores (mental developmental index and psychomotor developmental index) or in parent survey data (non-verbal cognition scale and language development scale).

CONCLUSION

Increasing rates of stillbirths and decreasing preterm births in Germany were observed. Existing networks might stabilise neurodevelopment of preterm infants during the COVID-19 pandemic.