-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2023Preterm infants (< 37 weeks' post-menstrual age (PMA)) are often delayed in attaining oral feeding. Normal oral feeding is suggested as an important outcome for the... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Preterm infants (< 37 weeks' post-menstrual age (PMA)) are often delayed in attaining oral feeding. Normal oral feeding is suggested as an important outcome for the timing of discharge from the hospital and can be an early indicator of neuromotor integrity and developmental outcomes. A range of oral stimulation interventions may help infants to develop sucking and oromotor co-ordination, promoting earlier oral feeding and earlier hospital discharge. This is an update of our 2016 review.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the effectiveness of oral stimulation interventions for attainment of oral feeding in preterm infants born before 37 weeks' PMA.
SEARCH METHODS
Searches were run in March 2022 of the following databases: CENTRAL via CRS Web; MEDLINE and Embase via Ovid. We also searched clinical trials databases and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-randomised trials. Searches were limited by date 2016 (the date of the search for the original review) forward. Note: Due to circumstances beyond our control (COVID and staffing shortages at the editorial base of Cochrane Neonatal), publication of this review, planned for mid 2021, was delayed. Thus, although searches were conducted in 2022 and results screened, potentially relevant studies found after September 2020 have been placed in the section, Awaiting Classification, and not incorporated into our analysis.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing a defined oral stimulation intervention with no intervention, standard care, sham treatment or non-oral intervention (e.g. body stroking protocols or gavage adjustment protocols) in preterm infants and reporting at least one of the specified outcomes.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Following the updated search, two review authors screened the titles and abstracts of studies and full-text copies when needed to identify trials for inclusion in the review. The primary outcomes of interest were time (days) to exclusive oral feeding, time (days) spent in NICU, total hospital stay (days), and duration (days) of parenteral nutrition. All review and support authors contributed to independent extraction of data and analysed assigned studies for risk of bias across the five domains of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias assessment tool. The GRADE system was used to rate the certainty of the evidence. Studies were divided into two groups for comparison: intervention versus standard care and intervention versus other non-oral or sham intervention. We performed meta-analysis using a fixed-effect model.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 28 RCTs (1831 participants). Most trials had methodological weaknesses, particularly in relation to allocation concealment and masking of study personnel. Oral stimulation compared with standard care Following meta-analysis, it is uncertain whether oral stimulation reduces the time to transition to oral feeding compared with standard care (mean difference (MD) -4.07 days, 95% confidence interval (CI) -4.81 to -3.32 days, 6 studies, 292 infants; I =85%, very low-certainty evidence due to serious risk of bias and inconsistency). Time (days) spent in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) was not reported. It is uncertain whether oral stimulation reduces the duration of hospitalisation (MD -4.33, 95% CI -5.97 to -2.68 days, 5 studies, 249 infants; i =68%, very low-certainty evidence due to serious risk of bias and inconsistency). Duration (days) of parenteral nutrition was not reported. Oral stimulation compared with non-oral intervention Following meta-analysis, it is uncertain whether oral stimulation reduces the time to transition to exclusive oral feeding compared with a non-oral intervention (MD -7.17, 95% CI -8.04 to -6.29 days, 10 studies, 574 infants; I =80%, very low-certainty evidence due to serious risk of bias, inconsistency and precision). Time (days) spent in the NICU was not reported. Oral stimulation may reduce the duration of hospitalisation (MD -6.15, 95% CI -8.63 to -3.66 days, 10 studies, 591 infants; I =0%, low-certainty evidence due to serious risk of bias). Oral stimulation may have little or no effect on the duration (days) of parenteral nutrition exposure (MD -2.85, 95% CI -6.13 to 0.42, 3 studies, 268 infants; very low-certainty evidence due to serious risk of bias, inconsistency and imprecision).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There remains uncertainty about the effects of oral stimulation (versus either standard care or a non-oral intervention) on transition times to oral feeding, duration of intensive care stay, hospital stay, or exposure to parenteral nutrition for preterm infants. Although we identified 28 eligible trials in this review, only 18 provided data for meta-analyses. Methodological weaknesses, particularly in relation to allocation concealment and masking of study personnel and caregivers, inconsistency between trials in effect size estimates (heterogeneity), and imprecision of pooled estimates were the main reasons for assessing the evidence as low or very low certainty. More well-designed trials of oral stimulation interventions for preterm infants are warranted. Such trials should attempt to mask caregivers to treatment when possible, paying particular attention to blinding of outcome assessors. There are currently 32 ongoing trials. Outcome measures that reflect improvements in oral motor skill development as well as longer term outcome measures beyond six months of age need to be defined and used by researchers to capture the full impact of these interventions.
Topics: Humans; Infant; Infant, Newborn; COVID-19; Enteral Nutrition; Infant, Premature; Intensive Care Units, Neonatal
PubMed: 37338236
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009720.pub3 -
Diabetic Medicine : a Journal of the... Oct 2014To synthesize evidence from randomized and non-randomized studies of physical activity interventions in children and young people with Type 1 diabetes so as to explore... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
AIMS
To synthesize evidence from randomized and non-randomized studies of physical activity interventions in children and young people with Type 1 diabetes so as to explore clinically relevant health outcomes and inform the promotion of physical activity.
METHOD
We conducted a search of CINAHL Plus, the Cochrane Library, EMBASE, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, SCOPUS, SportDiscus and Web of Science between October and December 2012. Eligible articles included subjects aged ≤18 years with Type 1 diabetes and a physical activity intervention that was more than a one-off activity session. Physiological, psychological, behavioural or social outcomes were those of interest.
RESULTS
A total of 26 articles (10 randomized and 16 non-randomized studies), published in the period 1964-2012, were reviewed. Although there was heterogeneity in study design, methods and reporting, 23 articles reported at least one significant beneficial health outcome at follow-up. Meta-analyses of these studies showed potential benefits of physical activity on HbA1c (11 studies, 345 participants, standardized mean difference -0.52, 95% CI -0.97 to -0.07; P = 0.02), BMI (four studies, 195 participants, standardized mean difference -0.41, 95% CI -0.70 to -0.12; P = 0.006) and triglycerides (five studies, 206 participants, standardized mean difference -0.70, 95% CI -1.25 to -0.14; P = 0.01).The largest effect size was for total cholesterol (five studies, 206 participants, standardized mean difference -0.91, 95% CI -1.66 to -0.17; P = 0.02).
CONCLUSIONS
Physical activity is important for diabetes management and has the potential to delay cardiovascular disease, but there is a lack of studies that are underpinned by psychological behaviour change theory, promoting sustained physical activity and exploring psychological outcomes. There remains a lack of knowledge of how to promote physical activity in people with Type 1 diabetes.
Topics: Adolescent; Cardiovascular Diseases; Child; Combined Modality Therapy; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1; Diabetic Angiopathies; Diabetic Cardiomyopathies; Evidence-Based Medicine; Exercise; Glycated Hemoglobin; Humans; Hyperglycemia; Hypoglycemia; Motor Activity
PubMed: 24965376
DOI: 10.1111/dme.12531 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2017Delayed motor development may occur in children with Down syndrome, cerebral palsy, general developmental delay or children born preterm. It limits the child's... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Delayed motor development may occur in children with Down syndrome, cerebral palsy, general developmental delay or children born preterm. It limits the child's exploration of the environment and can hinder cognitive and social-emotional development. Literature suggests that task-specific training, such as locomotor treadmill training, facilitates motor development.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness of treadmill interventions on locomotor development in children with delayed ambulation or in pre-ambulatory children (or both), who are under six years of age and who are at risk for neuromotor delay.
SEARCH METHODS
In May 2017, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, six other databases and a number of trials registers. We also searched the reference lists of relevant studies and systematic reviews.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs that evaluated the effect of treadmill intervention in the target population.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Four authors independently extracted the data. Outcome parameters were structured according to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health model.
MAIN RESULTS
This is an update of a Cochrane review from 2011, which included five trials. This update includes seven studies on treadmill intervention in 175 children: 104 were allocated to treadmill groups, and 71 were controls. The studies varied in population (children with Down syndrome, cerebral palsy, developmental delay or at moderate risk for neuromotor delay); comparison type (treadmill versus no treadmill; treadmill with versus without orthoses; high- versus low-intensity training); study duration, and assessed outcomes. Due to the diversity of the studies, only data from five studies were used in meta-analyses for five outcomes: age of independent walking onset, overall gross motor function, gross motor function related to standing and walking, and gait velocity. GRADE assessments of quality of the evidence ranged from high to very low.The effects of treadmill intervention on independent walking onset compared to no treadmill intervention was population dependent, but showed no overall effect (mean difference (MD) -2.08, 95% confidence intervals (CI) -5.38 to 1.22, 2 studies, 58 children; moderate-quality evidence): 30 children with Down syndrome benefited from treadmill training (MD -4.00, 95% CI -6.96 to -1.04), but 28 children at moderate risk of developmental delay did not (MD -0.60, 95% CI -2.34 to 1.14). We found no evidence regarding walking onset in two studies that compared treadmill intervention with and without orthotics in 17 children (MD 0.10, 95% CI -5.96 to 6.16), and high- versus low-intensity treadmill interventions in 30 children with Down syndrome (MD -2.13, 95% -4.96 to 0.70).Treadmill intervention did not improve overall gross motor function (MD 0.88, 95% CI -4.54 to 6.30, 2 studies, 36 children; moderate-quality evidence) or gross motor skills related to standing (MD 5.41, 95% CI -1.64 to 12.43, 2 studies, 32 children; low-quality evidence), and had a negligible improvement in gross motor skills related to walking (MD 4.51, 95% CI 0.29 to 8.73, 2 studies, 32 children; low-quality evidence). It led to improved walking skills in 20 ambulatory children with developmental delay (MD 7.60, 95% CI 0.88 to 14.32, 1 study) and favourable gross motor skills in 12 children with cerebral palsy (MD 8.00, 95% CI 3.18 to 12.82). A study which compared treadmill intervention with and without orthotics in 17 children with Down syndrome suggested that adding orthotics might hinder overall gross motor progress (MD -8.40, 95% CI -14.55 to -2.25).Overall, treadmill intervention showed a very small increase in walking speed compared to no treadmill intervention (MD 0.23, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.37, 2 studies, 32 children; high-quality evidence). Treadmill intervention increased walking speed in 20 ambulatory children with developmental delay (MD 0.25, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.42), but not in 12 children with cerebral palsy (MD 0.18, 95% CI -0.09 to 0.45).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
This update of the review from 2011 provides additional evidence of the efficacy of treadmill intervention for certain groups of children up to six years of age, but power to find significant results still remains limited. The current findings indicate that treadmill intervention may accelerate the development of independent walking in children with Down syndrome and may accelerate motor skill attainment in children with cerebral palsy and general developmental delay. Future research should first confirm these findings with larger and better designed studies, especially for infants with cerebral palsy and developmental delay. Once efficacy is established, research should examine the optimal dosage of treadmill intervention in these populations.
Topics: Body Weight; Cerebral Palsy; Child Development; Child, Preschool; Dependent Ambulation; Down Syndrome; Exercise Movement Techniques; Humans; Infant; Locomotion; Motor Skills; Motor Skills Disorders; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Walking
PubMed: 28755534
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009242.pub3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2022Despite the widespread use of antenatal corticosteroids to prevent respiratory distress syndrome (RDS) in preterm infants, there is currently no consensus as to the type... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Despite the widespread use of antenatal corticosteroids to prevent respiratory distress syndrome (RDS) in preterm infants, there is currently no consensus as to the type of corticosteroid to use, dose, frequency, timing of use or the route of administration. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects on fetal and neonatal morbidity and mortality, on maternal morbidity and mortality, and on the child and adult in later life, of administering different types of corticosteroids (dexamethasone or betamethasone), or different corticosteroid dose regimens, including timing, frequency and mode of administration.
SEARCH METHODS
For this update, we searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (9 May 2022) and reference lists of retrieved studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included all identified published and unpublished randomised controlled trials or quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing any two corticosteroids (dexamethasone or betamethasone or any other corticosteroid that can cross the placenta), comparing different dose regimens (including frequency and timing of administration) in women at risk of preterm birth. We planned to exclude cross-over trials and cluster-randomised trials. We planned to include studies published as abstracts only along with studies published as full-text manuscripts.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
At least two review authors independently assessed study eligibility, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies. Data were checked for accuracy. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 11 trials (2494 women and 2762 infants) in this update, all of which recruited women who were at increased risk of preterm birth or had a medical indication for preterm birth. All trials were conducted in high-income countries. Dexamethasone versus betamethasone Nine trials (2096 women and 2319 infants) compared dexamethasone versus betamethasone. All trials administered both drugs intramuscularly, and the total dose in the course was consistent (22.8 mg or 24 mg), but the regimen varied. We assessed one new study to have no serious risk of bias concerns for most outcomes, but other studies were at moderate (six trials) or high (two trials) risk of bias due to selection, detection and attrition bias. Our GRADE assessments ranged between high- and low-certainty, with downgrades due to risk of bias and imprecision. Maternal outcomes The only maternal primary outcome reported was chorioamnionitis (death and puerperal sepsis were not reported). Although the rate of chorioamnionitis was lower with dexamethasone, we did not find conclusive evidence of a difference between the two drugs (risk ratio (RR) 0.71, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.48 to 1.06; 1 trial, 1346 women; moderate-certainty evidence). The proportion of women experiencing maternal adverse effects of therapy was lower with dexamethasone; however, there was not conclusive evidence of a difference between interventions (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.35 to 1.13; 2 trials, 1705 women; moderate-certainty evidence). Infant outcomes We are unsure whether the choice of drug makes a difference to the risk of any known death after randomisation, because the 95% CI was compatible with both appreciable benefit and harm with dexamethasone (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.63; 5 trials, 2105 infants; moderate-certainty evidence). The choice of drug may make little or no difference to the risk of RDS (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.22; 5 trials, 2105 infants; high-certainty evidence). While there may be little or no difference in the risk of intraventricular haemorrhage (IVH), there was substantial unexplained statistical heterogeneity in this result (average (a) RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.28 to 1.81; 4 trials, 1902 infants; I² = 62%; low-certainty evidence). We found no evidence of a difference between the two drugs for chronic lung disease (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.34; 1 trial, 1509 infants; moderate-certainty evidence), and we are unsure of the effects on necrotising enterocolitis, because there were few events in the studies reporting this outcome (RR 5.08, 95% CI 0.25 to 105.15; 2 studies, 441 infants; low-certainty evidence). Longer-term child outcomes Only one trial consistently followed up children longer term, reporting at two years' adjusted age. There is probably little or no difference between dexamethasone and betamethasone in the risk of neurodevelopmental disability at follow-up (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.22; 2 trials, 1151 infants; moderate-certainty evidence). It is unclear whether the choice of drug makes a difference to the risk of visual impairment (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.15; 1 trial, 1227 children; low-certainty evidence). There may be little or no difference between the drugs for hearing impairment (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.63 to 2.16; 1 trial, 1227 children; moderate-certainty evidence), motor developmental delay (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.20; 1 trial, 1166 children; moderate-certainty evidence) or intellectual impairment (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.20; 1 trial, 1161 children; moderate-certainty evidence). However, the effect estimate for cerebral palsy is compatible with both an important increase in risk with dexamethasone, and no difference between interventions (RR 2.50, 95% CI 0.97 to 6.39; 1 trial, 1223 children; low-certainty evidence). No trials followed the children beyond early childhood. Comparisons of different preparations and regimens of corticosteroids We found three studies that included a comparison of a different regimen or preparation of either dexamethasone or betamethasone (oral dexamethasone 32 mg versus intramuscular dexamethasone 24 mg; betamethasone acetate plus phosphate versus betamethasone phosphate; 12-hourly betamethasone versus 24-hourly betamethasone). The certainty of the evidence for the main outcomes from all three studies was very low, due to small sample size and risk of bias. Therefore, we were limited in our ability to draw conclusions from any of these studies.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Overall, it remains unclear whether there are important differences between dexamethasone and betamethasone, or between one regimen and another. Most trials compared dexamethasone versus betamethasone. While for most infant and early childhood outcomes there may be no difference between these drugs, for several important outcomes for the mother, infant and child the evidence was inconclusive and did not rule out significant benefits or harms. The evidence on different antenatal corticosteroid regimens was sparse, and does not support the use of one particular corticosteroid regimen over another.
Topics: Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Betamethasone; Child; Child, Preschool; Chorioamnionitis; Dexamethasone; Female; Humans; Infant; Infant, Newborn; Infant, Premature; Lung; Pregnancy; Premature Birth; Respiratory Distress Syndrome, Newborn
PubMed: 35943347
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006764.pub4 -
Frontiers in Psychiatry 2023Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is a severe public health concern, and most of the children with ASD experience a substantial delay in FMS. This study aimed to...
BACKGROUND
Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is a severe public health concern, and most of the children with ASD experience a substantial delay in FMS. This study aimed to investigate the effectiveness of exercise interventions in improving FMS in children with ASD, and provide evidence to support the scientific use of exercise interventions in practice.
METHODS
We searched seven online databases (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Embase, EBSCO, Clinical Trials, and The Cochrane Library) from inception to May 20, 2022. We included randomized control trials of exercise interventions for FMS in children with ASD. The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using the Physiotherapy Evidence Database Scale. Stata 14.0 software was used for meta-analysis, forest plotting, subgroup analysis, heterogeneity analysis, and meta-regression.
RESULTS
Thirteen studies underwent systematic review (541 participants), of which 10 underwent meta-analysis (297 participants). Overall, exercise interventions significantly improved overall FMS in children with ASD. Regarding the three categories of FMS, exercise interventions significantly improved LMS (SMD = 1.07; 95% CI 0.73 to 1.41, < 0.001), OCS (SMD = 0.79; 95% CI 0.32 to 1.26, = 0.001), and SS (SMD = 0.72; 95% CI 0.45 to 0.98, < 0.0001).
CONCLUSION
exercise interventions can effectively improve the FMS of children with ASD. The effects on LMS are considered as large effect sizes, while the effects on OCS and SS are considered as moderate effect sizes. These findings can inform clinical practice.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
https://inplasy.com/inplasy-2022-12-0013/.
PubMed: 37377477
DOI: 10.3389/fpsyt.2023.1132074 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2015Children with developmental speech sound disorders have difficulties in producing the speech sounds of their native language. These speech difficulties could be due to... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Children with developmental speech sound disorders have difficulties in producing the speech sounds of their native language. These speech difficulties could be due to structural, sensory or neurophysiological causes (e.g. hearing impairment), but more often the cause of the problem is unknown. One treatment approach used by speech-language therapists/pathologists is non-speech oral motor treatment (NSOMT). NSOMTs are non-speech activities that aim to stimulate or improve speech production and treat specific speech errors. For example, using exercises such as smiling, pursing, blowing into horns, blowing bubbles, and lip massage to target lip mobility for the production of speech sounds involving the lips, such as /p/, /b/, and /m/. The efficacy of this treatment approach is controversial, and evidence regarding the efficacy of NSOMTs needs to be examined.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the efficacy of non-speech oral motor treatment (NSOMT) in treating children with developmental speech sound disorders who have speech errors.
SEARCH METHODS
In April 2014 we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Ovid MEDLINE (R) and Ovid MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, EMBASE, Education Resources Information Center (ERIC), PsycINFO and 11 other databases. We also searched five trial and research registers, checked the reference lists of relevant titles identified by the search and contacted researchers to identify other possible published and unpublished studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials that compared (1) NSOMT versus placebo or control; and (2) NSOMT as adjunctive treatment or speech intervention versus speech intervention alone, for children aged three to 16 years with developmental speech sound disorders, as judged by a speech and language therapist. Individuals with an intellectual disability (e.g. Down syndrome) or a physical disability were not excluded.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
The Trials Search Co-ordinator of the Cochrane Developmental, Psychosocial and Learning Problems Group and one review author ran the searches. Two review authors independently screened titles and abstracts to eliminate irrelevant studies, extracted data from the included studies and assessed risk of bias in each of these studies. In cases of ambiguity or information missing from the paper, we contacted trial authors.
MAIN RESULTS
This review identified three studies (from four reports) involving a total of 22 children that investigated the efficacy of NSOMT as adjunctive treatment to conventional speech intervention versus conventional speech intervention for children with speech sound disorders. One study, a randomised controlled trial (RCT), included four boys aged seven years one month to nine years six months - all had speech sound disorders, and two had additional conditions (one was diagnosed as "communication impaired" and the other as "multiply disabled"). Of the two quasi-randomised controlled trials, one included 10 children (six boys and four girls), aged five years eight months to six years nine months, with speech sound disorders as a result of tongue thrust, and the other study included eight children (four boys and four girls), aged three to six years, with moderate to severe articulation disorder only. Two studies did not find NSOMT as adjunctive treatment to be more effective than conventional speech intervention alone, as both intervention and control groups made similar improvements in articulation after receiving treatments. One study reported a change in postintervention articulation test results but used an inappropriate statistical test and did not report the results clearly. None of the included studies examined the effects of NSOMTs on any other primary outcomes, such as speech intelligibility, speech physiology and adverse effects, or on any of the secondary outcomes such as listener acceptability.The RCT was judged at low risk for selection bias. The two quasi-randomised trials used randomisation but did not report the method for generating the random sequence and were judged as having unclear risk of selection bias. The three included studies were deemed to have high risk of performance bias as, given the nature of the intervention, blinding of participants was not possible. Only one study implemented blinding of outcome assessment and was at low risk for detection bias. One study showed high risk of other bias as the baseline characteristics of participants seemed to be unequal. The sample size of each of the included studies was very small, which means it is highly likely that participants in these studies were not representative of its target population. In the light of these serious limitations in methodology, the overall quality of the evidence provided by the included trials is judged to be low. Therefore, further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of treatment effect and is likely to change the estimate.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The three included studies were small in scale and had a number of serious methodological limitations. In addition, they covered limited types of NSOMTs for treating children with speech sound disorders of unknown origin with the sounds /s/ and /z/. Hence, we judged the overall applicability of the evidence as limited and incomplete. Results of this review are consistent with those of previous reviews: Currently no strong evidence suggests that NSOMTs are an effective treatment or an effective adjunctive treatment for children with developmental speech sound disorders. Lack of strong evidence regarding the treatment efficacy of NSOMTs has implications for clinicians when they make decisions in relation to treatment plans. Well-designed research is needed to carefully investigate NSOMT as a type of treatment for children with speech sound disorders.
Topics: Articulation Disorders; Child; Child, Preschool; Dysphonia; Exercise Therapy; Female; Humans; Language Disorders; Male; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Speech Sound Disorder; Speech Therapy
PubMed: 25805060
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009383.pub2 -
Schizophrenia Research Oct 2017The neurodevelopmental hypothesis of schizophrenia proposes that impaired brain development is a cause of the illness. Early motor developmental milestones, such as... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
The neurodevelopmental hypothesis of schizophrenia proposes that impaired brain development is a cause of the illness. Early motor developmental milestones, such as learning to walk, are predictors of later schizophrenia but studies have not been systematically reviewed. The aim of the present systematic review and meta-analysis was to explore the association between early motor developmental milestones and the risk of adult schizophrenia. In addition, we updated a systematic review on motor function and risk of schizophrenia. The PubMed, PsycINFO and Scopus databases were searched for original research articles published up to July 2015. Motor milestones were measured between ages 0 and 13years. Random effect meta-analysis calculated effect estimates (Hedges' g) for the association between individual motor milestones and schizophrenia risk. An electronic database and selected articles reference list search identified 5990 articles after removing duplicates. Sixty-nine full text articles were assessed for eligibility of which six were included in the review. Five studies provided sufficient data for meta-analyses. The following motor milestones were significantly associated with adult schizophrenia risk: walking unsupported (g=0.46; 95% CI 0.27-0.64; p<0.001), standing unsupported (g=0.28; 0.16-0.40; p<0.001) and sitting unsupported (g=0.18; 0.05-0.31; p=0.007). Results for the milestones 'holding head up' and 'grabbing object' were not statistically significant. Delayed walking, sitting and standing unsupported were associated with adult onset schizophrenia. The findings emphasise the importance of timely achievement of these motor milestones in childhood and can contribute to the identification of individuals at risk of psychosis.
Topics: Adolescent; Child; Child Development; Child, Preschool; Developmental Disabilities; Humans; Infant; Infant, Newborn; Motor Skills; Schizophrenia
PubMed: 28131598
DOI: 10.1016/j.schres.2017.01.029 -
Dystonia (Lausanne, Switzerland) 2022Blepharospasm is a type of dystonia where the diagnosis is often delayed because its varied clinical manifestations are not well recognized. The purpose of this study...
OBJECTIVE
Blepharospasm is a type of dystonia where the diagnosis is often delayed because its varied clinical manifestations are not well recognized. The purpose of this study was to provide a comprehensive picture of its clinical features including presenting features, motor features, and non-motor features.
METHODS
This was a two-part study. The first part involved a systematic literature review that summarized clinical features for 10,324 cases taken from 41 prior reports. The second part involved a summary of clinical features for 884 cases enrolled in a large multicenter cohort collected by the Dystonia Coalition investigators, along with an analysis of the factors that contribute to the spread of dystonia beyond the periocular region.
RESULTS
For cases in the literature and the Dystonia Coalition, blepharospasm emerged in the 50s and was more frequent in women. Many presented with non-specific motor symptoms such as increased blinking (51.9%) or non-motor sensory features such as eye soreness or pain (38.7%), photophobia (35.5%), or dry eyes (10.7%). Non-motor psychiatric features were also common including anxiety disorders (34-40%) and depression (21-24%). Among cases presenting with blepharospasm in the Dystonia Coalition cohort, 61% experienced spread of dystonia to other regions, most commonly the oromandibular region and neck. Features associated with spread included severity of blepharospasm, family history of dystonia, depression, and anxiety.
CONCLUSIONS
This study provides a comprehensive summary of motor and non-motor features of blepharospasm, along with novel insights into factors that may be responsible for its poor diagnostic recognition and natural history.
PubMed: 36248010
DOI: 10.3389/dyst.2022.10359 -
Journal of Neurology Dec 2023Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) is a fatal neurodegenerative disease characterized by the degeneration of both upper and lower motoneurons, leading to motor and... (Review)
Review
Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) is a fatal neurodegenerative disease characterized by the degeneration of both upper and lower motoneurons, leading to motor and non-motor symptoms. Recent evidence suggests that ALS is indeed a multisystem disorder, associated with cognitive impairment, dysautonomia, pain and fatigue, excess of secretions, and sensory symptoms. To evaluate whether sensory neuropathy could broaden its spectrum, we systematically reviewed its presence and characteristics in ALS, extracting data on epidemiological, clinical, neurophysiological, neuropathological, and genetic features. Sensory neuropathy can be found in up to 20% of ALS patients, affecting both large and small fibers, although there is a great heterogeneity related to different techniques used for its detection (electromyography vs skin biopsy vs nerve biopsy). Moreover, the association between CIDP-like neuropathy and ALS needs to be better explored, although it could be interpreted as part of the neuroinflammatory process in the latter disease. Sensory neuropathy in ALS may be associated with a spinal onset and might be more frequent in SOD1 patients. Moreover, it seems mutually exclusive with cognitive impairment. No associations with sex and other genetic mutation were observed. All these data in the literature reveal the importance of actively looking for sensory neuropathy in ALS patients, and suggest including sensory neuropathy among ALS non-motor features, as it may explain sensory symptoms frequently reported throughout the course of the disease. Its early identification could help avoid diagnostic delays and improve patients' treatment and quality of life.
Topics: Humans; Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis; Neurodegenerative Diseases; Quality of Life; Motor Neurons; Electromyography
PubMed: 37610446
DOI: 10.1007/s00415-023-11954-1 -
Frontiers in Pediatrics 2023This systematic review aims to estimate the relationship between prenatal exposure to opioids and neurodevelopmental outcomes and examines potential sources of... (Review)
Review
AIM
This systematic review aims to estimate the relationship between prenatal exposure to opioids and neurodevelopmental outcomes and examines potential sources of heterogeneity between the studies.
METHODS
We searched four databases through May 21st, 2022: PubMed, Embase, PsycInfo and the Web of Science according to a specified search strings. Study inclusion criteria include: (1) cohort and case-control peer-reviewed studies published in English; (2) studies comparing neurodevelopmental outcomes among children with prenatal opioid-exposure (prescribed or used non-medically) vs. an unexposed group. Studies investigating fetal alcohol syndrome or a different primary prenatal exposure other than opioids were excluded. Two main performed data extraction using "Covidence" systematic review platform. This systematic review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. The Newcastle-Ottawa-Scale was used for quality assessment of the studies. Studies were synthesized based on the type of neurodevelopmental outcome and the instrument used to assess neurodevelopment.
RESULTS
Data were extracted from 79 studies. We found significant heterogeneity between studies due to their use of different instruments to explore cognitive skills, motor, and behavioral outcomes among children of different ages. The other sources of heterogeneity included: procedures to assess prenatal exposure to opioids; period of pregnancy in which exposure was assessed; type of opioids assessed (non-medical, medication used for opioid use dis-order, prescribed by health professional), types of co-exposure; source of selection of prenatally exposed study participants and comparison groups; and methods to address lack of comparability between exposed and unexposed groups. Cognitive and motor skills as well as behavior were generally negatively affected by prenatal opioid exposure, but the significant heterogeneity precluded a meta-analysis.
CONCLUSION
We explored sources of heterogeneity in the studies assessing the association between prenatal exposure to opioids and neurodevelopmental outcomes. Sources of heterogeneity included different approaches to participant recruitment as well as exposure and outcome ascertainment methods. Nonetheless, overall negative trends were observed between prenatal opioid exposure and neuro-developmental outcomes.
PubMed: 36896405
DOI: 10.3389/fped.2023.1071889