Neoreviews
HOME HELP CONTACT US SUBSCRIPTIONS CME ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Take the CME quiz:
 Vol. 2 No. 11, November 2001
Right arrow Author Disclosures
Right arrow E-Letters: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when E-Letters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow E-mail this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My File Cabinet
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via CrossRef
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by O’Shea, M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by O’Shea, M.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Facebook   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

(NeoReviews. 2001;2:E249-e256.)
© 2001 American Academy of Pediatrics

Changing Characteristics of Neonatal Follow-up Studies

Michael O’Shea, MD, MPH

*


* Director of High Risk Infant Follow-up; Section Chief for Neonatology; Professor of Pediatrics, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, NC.


   Objectives
 
After completing this article, readers should be able to:

  1. Describe changes over time in the characteristics of study subjects in neonatal follow-up studies.
  2. Describe changes over time in the outcome assessments of neonatal follow-up studies.
  3. Delineate four broad research themes of neonatal follow-up studies.
  4. Summarize the evolution of studies of the prevalence of disability and contributing causes of developmental impairments in preterm infants.
  5. Summarize the evolution of studies of severely ill term and near-term infants.


   Introduction
 
Within a few years of the opening of the first preterm infant nursery in the United States in 1922, reports appeared describing the long-term outcomes of treated infants. Early studies of health and developmental outcome described the frequency of impairments for specific groups of high-risk neonates. More recently, neonatal follow-up studies have been used to evaluate the effectiveness of therapeutic interventions and to test specific hypotheses about the etiology of an impairment.

The outcome of interest in neonatal follow-up studies is the health or development, beyond the first months of life, of high-risk neonates. In observational follow-up studies, risk factors of interest have included biologic (eg, perinatally acquired brain damage), environmental (eg, maternal depression), and "established" risk factors (eg, cytomegalovirus infection, genetic syndromes).

Table 1Go summarizes changes in research methods in follow-up studies during the 20th century Based on epidemiologic principles, Kiely and Paneth offered the following suggestions for improving neonatal follow-up studies: 1) use of population-based rather than hospital-based samples for prevalence studies; 2) inclusion of appropriate controls; 3) assessment of confounding due to social class; and 4) minimizing lost-to-follow-up rates. In addition, they commented on issues specific to neonatal follow-up, including: 1) continued follow-up of subjects to school age; 2) reporting of mortality rates as well as morbidity; 3) reporting of birthweight-specific data; and 4) more detailed reporting of the co-occurrence of impairments. . . . [Full Text of this Article]


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Facebook Facebook   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?




HOME HELP CONTACT US SUBSCRIPTIONS CME ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2001 by the American Academy of Pediatrics.