Early Intervention Including an Active Motor Component in Preterms with Varying Risks for Neuromotor Delay: A Systematic Review and Narrative Synthesis.

IF 3 3区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Nele De Bruyn, Britta Hanssen, Lisa Mailleux, Christine Van den Broeck, Bieke Samijn
{"title":"Early Intervention Including an Active Motor Component in Preterms with Varying Risks for Neuromotor Delay: A Systematic Review and Narrative Synthesis.","authors":"Nele De Bruyn, Britta Hanssen, Lisa Mailleux, Christine Van den Broeck, Bieke Samijn","doi":"10.3390/jcm14041364","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background/Objectives:</b> Previous reviews demonstrated stronger benefits of early interventions on cognition compared to motor outcome in preterm-born infants. Potentially, motor development needs more targeted interventions, including at least an active motor component. However, there is no overview focusing on such interventions in preterm-born infants, despite the increased risk for neuromotor delays. <b>Methods:</b> PubMed, Embase and Web of Science were systematically searched for (quasi-)randomized controlled trials regarding early interventions in preterm-born infants, with varying risks for neuromotor delay, and trials comprising an active motor component started within the first year were included. Study data and participant characteristics were extracted. The risk of bias was assessed with the Risk of Bias 2 tool. <b>Results:</b> Twenty-five reports, including twenty-one unique (quasi-)RCTs, were included and categorized as either pure motor-based interventions (<i>n</i> = 6) or family-centered interventions (<i>n</i> = 19). Of the motor-based interventions, four improved motor outcomes immediately after the intervention, and one of these also did so at follow-up, compared to five and one for family-centered approaches, respectively. Only five family-centered studies assessed long-term effects beyond age five, finding no greater efficacy than standard care. Overall, large variations were present for intervention intensity, type and outcomes between the included studies. <b>Conclusions:</b> Although methodological heterogeneity compromised conclusions, limited effects on motor outcome, in particular long-term outcome, were identified. Including a stronger motor-focused component embedded within a family-centered approach could potentially increase the impact on motor outcome, which would be of particular interest for infants showing early signs of neuromotor delay.</p>","PeriodicalId":15533,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical Medicine","volume":"14 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Clinical Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm14041364","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background/Objectives: Previous reviews demonstrated stronger benefits of early interventions on cognition compared to motor outcome in preterm-born infants. Potentially, motor development needs more targeted interventions, including at least an active motor component. However, there is no overview focusing on such interventions in preterm-born infants, despite the increased risk for neuromotor delays. Methods: PubMed, Embase and Web of Science were systematically searched for (quasi-)randomized controlled trials regarding early interventions in preterm-born infants, with varying risks for neuromotor delay, and trials comprising an active motor component started within the first year were included. Study data and participant characteristics were extracted. The risk of bias was assessed with the Risk of Bias 2 tool. Results: Twenty-five reports, including twenty-one unique (quasi-)RCTs, were included and categorized as either pure motor-based interventions (n = 6) or family-centered interventions (n = 19). Of the motor-based interventions, four improved motor outcomes immediately after the intervention, and one of these also did so at follow-up, compared to five and one for family-centered approaches, respectively. Only five family-centered studies assessed long-term effects beyond age five, finding no greater efficacy than standard care. Overall, large variations were present for intervention intensity, type and outcomes between the included studies. Conclusions: Although methodological heterogeneity compromised conclusions, limited effects on motor outcome, in particular long-term outcome, were identified. Including a stronger motor-focused component embedded within a family-centered approach could potentially increase the impact on motor outcome, which would be of particular interest for infants showing early signs of neuromotor delay.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Clinical Medicine
Journal of Clinical Medicine MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL-
CiteScore
5.70
自引率
7.70%
发文量
6468
审稿时长
16.32 days
期刊介绍: Journal of Clinical Medicine (ISSN 2077-0383), is an international scientific open access journal, providing a platform for advances in health care/clinical practices, the study of direct observation of patients and general medical research. This multi-disciplinary journal is aimed at a wide audience of medical researchers and healthcare professionals. Unique features of this journal: manuscripts regarding original research and ideas will be particularly welcomed.JCM also accepts reviews, communications, and short notes. There is no limit to publication length: our aim is to encourage scientists to publish their experimental and theoretical results in as much detail as possible.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信