-
International Journal of Environmental... Apr 2018Childhood is an important and sensitive period for cognitive development. There is limited published research regarding the relationship between sports and cognitive...
Childhood is an important and sensitive period for cognitive development. There is limited published research regarding the relationship between sports and cognitive functions in children. We present studies that demonstrate the influence of physical activity on health, especially a positive correlation between sports and cognitive functions. The keywords “children, cognition, cognitive function, physical activity, and brain” were searched for using PsycInfo, Medline, and Google Scholar, with publication dates ranging from January 2000 to November 2017. Of the 617 results, 58 articles strictly connected to the main topics of physical activity and cognitive functioning were then reviewed. The areas of attention, thinking, language, learning, and memory were analyzed relative to sports and childhood. Results suggest that engaging in sports in late childhood positively influences cognitive and emotional functions. There is a paucity of publications that investigate the impact of sports on pre-adolescents’ cognitive functions, or explore which cognitive functions are developed by which sporting disciplines. Such knowledge would be useful in developing training programs for pre-adolescents, aimed at improving cognitive functions that may guide both researchers and practitioners relative to the wide range of benefits that result from physical activity.
Topics: Attention; Child; Cognition; Exercise; Humans; Language; Memory; Sports
PubMed: 29671803
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph15040800 -
BioMed Research International 2017This study synthesized literature concerning casual evidence of effects of various physical activity programs on motor skills and cognitive development in typically... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
This study synthesized literature concerning casual evidence of effects of various physical activity programs on motor skills and cognitive development in typically developed preschool children.
METHODS
Electronic databases were searched through July 2017. Peer-reviewed randomized controlled trials (RCTs) examining the effectiveness of physical activity on motor skills and cognitive development in healthy young children (4-6 years) were screened.
RESULTS
A total of 15 RCTs were included. Of the 10 studies assessing the effects of physical activity on motor skills, eight (80%) reported significant improvements in motor performance and one observed mixed findings, but one failed to promote any beneficial outcomes. Of the five studies investigating the influence of physical activity on cognitive development, four (80%) showed significant and positive changes in language learning, academic achievement, attention, and working memory. Notably, one indicated no significant improvements were observed after the intervention.
CONCLUSIONS
Findings support causal evidence of effects of physical activity on both motor skills and cognitive development in preschool children. Given the shortage of available studies, future research with large representative samples is warranted to explore the relationships between physical activity and cognitive domains as well as strengthen and confirm the dose-response evidence in early childhood.
Topics: Child; Child Development; Child, Preschool; Cognition; Exercise; Female; Humans; Male; Motor Skills; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 29387718
DOI: 10.1155/2017/2760716 -
JAMA Pediatrics Jul 2020There is considerable public and scientific debate as to whether screen use helps or hinders early child development, particularly the development of language skills. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
IMPORTANCE
There is considerable public and scientific debate as to whether screen use helps or hinders early child development, particularly the development of language skills.
OBJECTIVE
To examine via meta-analyses the associations between quantity (duration of screen time and background television), quality (educational programming and co-viewing), and onset of screen use and children's language skills.
DATA SOURCES
Searches were conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO in March 2019. The search strategy included a publication date limit from 1960 through March 2019.
STUDY SELECTION
Inclusion criteria were a measure of screen use; a measure of language skills; and statistical data that could be transformed into an effect size. Exclusion criteria were qualitative studies; child age older than 12 years; and language assessment preverbal.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
The following variables were extracted: effect size, child age and sex, screen measure type, study publication year, and study design. All studies were independently coded by 2 coders and conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
Based on a priori study criteria, quantity of screen use included duration of screen time and background television, quality of screen use included co-viewing and exposure to educational programs, and onset of screen use was defined as the age children first began viewing screens. The child language outcome included assessments of receptive and/or expressive language.
RESULTS
Participants totaled 18 905 from 42 studies included. Effect sizes were measured as correlations (r). Greater quantity of screen use (hours per use) was associated with lower language skills (screen time [n = 38; r = -0.14; 95% CI, -0.18 to -0.10]; background television [n = 5; r = -0.19; 95% CI, -0.33 to -0.05]), while better-quality screen use (educational programs [n = 13; r = 0.13; 95% CI, 0.02-0.24]; co-viewing [n = 12; r = 0.16; 95% CI, 0.07-.24]) were associated with stronger child language skills. Later age at screen use onset was also associated with stronger child language skills [n = 4; r = 0.17; 95% CI, 0.07-0.27].
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
The findings of this meta-analysis support pediatric recommendations to limit children's duration of screen exposure, to select high-quality programming, and to co-view when possible.
Topics: Child; Child Language; Humans; Parents; Television
PubMed: 32202633
DOI: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2020.0327 -
JAMA Pediatrics Jul 2019Training parents to implement strategies to support child language development is crucial to support long-term outcomes, given that as many as 2 of 5 children younger... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
IMPORTANCE
Training parents to implement strategies to support child language development is crucial to support long-term outcomes, given that as many as 2 of 5 children younger than 5 years have difficulty learning language.
OBJECTIVE
To examine the association between parent training and language and communication outcomes in young children.
DATA SOURCES
Searches of ERIC, Academic Search Complete, PsycINFO, and PsycARTICLES were conducted on August 11, 2014; August 18, 2016; January 23, 2018; and October 30, 2018.
STUDY SELECTION
Studies included in this review and meta-analysis were randomized or nonrandomized clinical trials that evaluated a language intervention that included parent training with children with a mean age of less than 6 years. Studies were excluded if the parent was not the primary implementer of the intervention, the study included fewer than 10 participants, or the study did not report outcomes related to language or communication.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were applied to a total of 31 778 articles identified for screening, with the full text of 723 articles reviewed and 76 total studies ultimately included.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
Main outcomes included language and communication skills in children with primary or secondary language impairment and children at risk for language impairment.
RESULTS
This meta-analysis included 59 randomized clinical trials and 17 nonrandomized clinical trials including 5848 total participants (36.4 female [20.8%]; mean [SD] age, 3.5 [3.9] years). The intervention approach in 63 studies was a naturalistic teaching approach, and 16 studies used a primarily dialogic reading approach. There was a significant moderate association between parent training and child communication, engagement, and language outcomes (mean [SE] Hedges g, -0.33 [0.06]; P < .001). The association between parent training and parent use of language support strategies was large (mean [SE] Hedges g, 0.55 [0.11], P < .001). Children with developmental language disorder had the largest social communication outcomes (mean [SE] Hedges g, 0.37 [0.17]); large and significant associations were observed for receptive (mean [SE] Hedges g, 0.92 [0.30]) and expressive language (mean [SE] Hedges g, 0.83 [0.20]). Children at risk for language impairments had moderate effect sizes across receptive language (mean [SE] Hedges g, 0.28 [0.15]) and engagement outcomes (mean [SE] Hedges g, 0.36 [0.17]).
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
The findings suggest that training parents to implement language and communication intervention techniques is associated with improved outcomes for children and increased parent use of support strategies. These findings may have direct implications on intervention and prevention.
Topics: Child; Child Language; Communication; Humans; Language Development Disorders; Parents
PubMed: 31107508
DOI: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2019.1197 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... 2003It is thought that approximately 6% of children have speech and language difficulties of which the majority will not have any other significant developmental... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
It is thought that approximately 6% of children have speech and language difficulties of which the majority will not have any other significant developmental difficulties. Whilst most children's difficulties resolve, children whose difficulties persist into primary school may have long-term problems concerning literacy, socialisation, behaviour and school attainment.
OBJECTIVES
To examine the effectiveness of speech and language interventions for children with primary speech and language delay/disorder.
SEARCH STRATEGY
The following databases were searched: The Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (Cochrane Library, CENTRAL: 2002/3), CINAHL (1982 - July 2002), EMBASE (1980 - Sept Week 4 2002), ERIC (1965 - 2002), MEDLINE (1966 - Sept Week 3 2002), PsycINFO (1872 - 2002/10 Week 2), The National Research Register (2002/3). In addition to this references were taken from reviews of the literature and reference lists from articles.
SELECTION CRITERIA
The review considered randomised controlled trials of speech and language therapy interventions for children or adolescents with primary speech and language delay/disorder.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Titles and abstracts were identified and assessed for relevance, before the full text version was obtained of all potentially relevant articles. The data were categorised depending on the nature of the control group and considered in terms of the effects of intervention on expressive and receptive phonology, syntax and vocabulary. The outcomes used in the analysis were dependent on the focus of the study with only the primary effects of therapy being considered in this review.
MAIN RESULTS
The results of twenty-five studies were used in the meta-analysis. The results suggest that speech and language therapy is effective for children with phonological (SMD=0.44, 95%CI: 0.01,0.86) or vocabulary difficulties (SMD=0.89, 95%CI: 0.21,1.56), but that there is less evidence that interventions are effective for children with receptive difficulties (SMD=-0.04, 95%CI: -0.64,0.56). Mixed findings were found concerning the effectiveness of expressive syntax interventions (n=233; SMD=1.02, 95%CI: 0.04-2.01). No significant differences were shown between clinician administered intervention and intervention implemented by trained parents, and studies did not show a difference between the effects of group and individual interventions (SMD=0.01, 95%CI: -0.26,1.17). The use of normal language peers in therapy was shown to have a positive effect on therapy outcome (SMD=2.29, 95%CI: 1.11,3.48).
REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS
The review shows that overall there is a positive effect of speech and language therapy interventions for children with expressive phonological and expressive vocabulary difficulties. The evidence for expressive syntax difficulties is more mixed, and there is a need for further research to investigate intervention for receptive language difficulties. There is a large degree of heterogeneity in the results, and the sources of this need to be investigated.
Topics: Adolescent; Aphasia; Child; Dysarthria; Humans; Language Development Disorders; Language Therapy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Speech Disorders; Speech Therapy
PubMed: 12918003
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004110 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2018Childhood apraxia of speech (CAS) affects a child's ability to produce sounds and syllables precisely and consistently, and to produce words and sentences with accuracy... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Childhood apraxia of speech (CAS) affects a child's ability to produce sounds and syllables precisely and consistently, and to produce words and sentences with accuracy and correct speech rhythm. It is a rare condition, affecting only 0.1% of the general population. Consensus has been reached that three core features have diagnostic validity: (1) inconsistent error production on both consonants and vowels across repeated productions of syllables or words; (2) lengthened and impaired coarticulatory transitions between sounds and syllables; and (3) inappropriate prosody (ASHA 2007). A deficit in motor programming or planning is thought to underlie the condition. This means that children know what they would like to say but there is a breakdown in the ability to programme or plan the fine and rapid movements required to accurately produce speech. Children with CAS may also have impairments in one or more of the following areas: non-speech oral motor function, dysarthria, language, phonological production impairment, phonemic awareness or metalinguistic skills and literacy, or combinations of these. High-quality evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is lacking on interventions for CAS.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the efficacy of interventions targeting speech and language in children and adolescents with CAS as delivered by speech and language pathologists/therapists.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, eight other databases and seven trial registers up to April 2017. We searched the reference lists of included reports and requested information on unpublished trials from authors of published studies and other experts as well as information groups in the areas of speech and language therapy/pathology and linguistics.
SELECTION CRITERIA
RCTs and quasi-RCTs of children aged 3 to 16 years with CAS diagnosed by a speech and language pathologist/therapist, grouped by treatment types.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors (FL, AM) independently assessed titles and abstracts identified from the searches and obtained full-text reports of all potentially relevant articles and assessed these for eligibility. The same two authors extracted data and conducted the 'Risk of bias' and GRADE assessments. One review author (EM) tabulated findings from excluded observational studies (Table 1).
MAIN RESULTS
This review includes only one RCT, funded by the Australian Research Council; the University of Sydney International Development Fund; Douglas and Lola Douglas Scholarship on Child and Adolescent Health; Nadia Verrall Memorial Scholarship; and a James Kentley Memorial Fellowship. This study recruited 26 children aged 4 to 12 years, with mild to moderate CAS of unknown cause, and compared two interventions: the Nuffield Dyspraxia Programme-3 (NDP-3); and the Rapid Syllable Transitions Treatment (ReST). Children were allocated randomly to one of the two treatments. Treatments were delivered intensively in one-hour sessions, four days a week for three weeks, in a university clinic in Australia. Speech pathology students delivered the treatments in the English language. Outcomes were assessed before therapy, immediately after therapy, at one month and four months post-therapy. Our review looked at one-month post-therapy outcomes only.We judged all core outcome domains to be low risk of bias. We downgraded the quality of the evidence by one level to moderate due to imprecision, given that only one RCT was identified. Both the NDP-3 and ReST therapies demonstrated improvement at one month post-treatment. A number of cases in each cohort had recommenced usual treatment by their speech and language pathologist between one month and four months post-treatment (NDP-3: 9/13 participants; ReST: 9/13 participants). Hence, maintenance of treatment effects to four months post-treatment could not be analysed without significant potential bias, and thus this time point was not included for further analysis in this review.There is limited evidence that, when delivered intensively, both the NDP-3 and ReST may effect improvement in word accuracy in 4- to 12-year-old children with CAS, measured by the accuracy of production on treated and non-treated words, speech production consistency and the accuracy of connected speech. The study did not measure functional communication.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is limited evidence that, when delivered intensively, both the NDP-3 and ReST may effect improvement in word accuracy in 4- to 12-year-old children with CAS, measured by the accuracy of production on treated and non-treated words, speech production consistency and the accuracy of connected speech. The study did not measure functional communication. No formal analyses were conducted to compare NDP-3 and ReST by the original study authors, hence one treatment cannot be reliably advocated over the other. We are also unable to say whether either treatment is better than no treatment or treatment as usual. No evidence currently exists to support the effectiveness of other treatments for children aged 4 to 12 years with idiopathic CAS without other comorbid neurodevelopmental disorders. Further RCTs replicating this study would strengthen the evidence base. Similarly, further RCTs are needed of other interventions, in other age ranges and populations with CAS and with co-occurring disorders.
Topics: Apraxias; Child; Child, Preschool; Humans; Speech Disorders; Speech Therapy; Speech-Language Pathology
PubMed: 29845607
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006278.pub3 -
Consequences of maternal postpartum depression: A systematic review of maternal and infant outcomes.Women's Health (London, England) 2019The postpartum period represents the time of risk for the emergence of maternal postpartum depression. There are no systematic reviews of the overall maternal outcomes...
INTRODUCTION
The postpartum period represents the time of risk for the emergence of maternal postpartum depression. There are no systematic reviews of the overall maternal outcomes of maternal postpartum depression. The aim of this study was to evaluate both the infant and the maternal consequences of untreated maternal postpartum depression.
METHODS
We searched for studies published between 1 January 2005 and 17 August 2016, using the following databases: MEDLINE via Ovid, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group trials registry.
RESULTS
A total of 122 studies (out of 3712 references retrieved from bibliographic databases) were included in this systematic review. The results of the studies were synthetized into three categories: (a) the maternal consequences of postpartum depression, including physical health, psychological health, relationship, and risky behaviors; (b) the infant consequences of postpartum depression, including anthropometry, physical health, sleep, and motor, cognitive, language, emotional, social, and behavioral development; and (c) mother-child interactions, including bonding, breastfeeding, and the maternal role.
DISCUSSION
The results suggest that postpartum depression creates an environment that is not conducive to the personal development of mothers or the optimal development of a child. It therefore seems important to detect and treat depression during the postnatal period as early as possible to avoid harmful consequences.
Topics: Adult; Body Weights and Measures; Breast Feeding; Child Development; Cognition; Depression, Postpartum; Female; Health Status; Humans; Infant; Infant, Newborn; Language; Male; Mental Health; Mother-Child Relations; Quality of Life; Risk-Taking; Sleep; Women's Health
PubMed: 31035856
DOI: 10.1177/1745506519844044 -
JAMA Pediatrics Nov 2020There is widespread interest in associations between maternal perinatal depression and anxiety and offspring development; however, to date, there has been no systematic,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
IMPORTANCE
There is widespread interest in associations between maternal perinatal depression and anxiety and offspring development; however, to date, there has been no systematic, meta-analytic review on the long-term developmental outcomes spanning infancy through adolescence.
OBJECTIVE
To provide a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis of the extant literature on associations between maternal perinatal depression and anxiety and social-emotional, cognitive, language, motor, and adaptability outcomes in offspring during the first 18 years of life.
DATA SOURCES
Six databases were searched (CINAHL Complete, Cochrane Library, Embase, Informit, MEDLINE Complete, and PsycInfo) for all extant studies reporting associations between perinatal maternal mental health problems and offspring development to March 1, 2020.
STUDY SELECTION
Studies were included if they were published in English; had a human sample, quantitative data, a longitudinal design, and measures of perinatal depression and/or anxiety and social-emotional, cognitive, language, motor, and/or adaptability development in offspring; and investigated an association between perinatal depression or anxiety and childhood development.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Of 27 212 articles identified, 191 were eligible for meta-analysis. Data were extracted by multiple independent observers and pooled using a fixed- or a random-effects model. A series of meta-regressions were also conducted. Data were analyzed from January 1, 2019, to March 15, 2020.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
Primary outcomes included social-emotional, cognitive, language, motor, and adaptability development in offspring during the first 18 years of life.
RESULTS
After screening, 191 unique studies were eligible for meta-analysis, with a combined sample of 195 751 unique mother-child dyads. Maternal perinatal depression and anxiety were associated with poorer offspring social-emotional (antenatal period, r = 0.21 [95% CI, 0.16-0.27]; postnatal period, r = 0.24 [95% CI, 0.19-0.28]), cognitive (antenatal period, r = -0.12 [95% CI, -0.19 to -0.05]; postnatal period, r = -0.25 [95% CI, -0.39 to -0.09]), language (antenatal period, r = -0.11 [95% CI, -0.20 to 0.02]; postnatal period, r = -0.22 [95% CI, -0.40 to 0.03]), motor (antenatal period, r = -0.07 [95% CI, -0.18 to 0.03]; postnatal period, r = -0.07 [95% CI, -0.16 to 0.03]), and adaptive behavior (antenatal period, r = -0.26 [95% CI, -0.39 to -0.12]) development. Findings extended beyond infancy, into childhood and adolescence. Meta-regressions confirmed the robustness of the results.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
Evidence suggests that perinatal depression and anxiety in mothers are adversely associated with offspring development and therefore are important targets for prevention and early intervention to support mothers transitioning into parenthood and the health and well-being of next-generation offspring.
Topics: Adolescent; Anxiety; Child; Child Development; Child, Preschool; Correlation of Data; Depression; Female; Humans; Infant; Male; Pregnancy
PubMed: 32926075
DOI: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2020.2910 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2018Communication and language development are areas of particular weakness for young children with Down syndrome. Caregivers' interaction with children influences language... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Communication and language development are areas of particular weakness for young children with Down syndrome. Caregivers' interaction with children influences language development, so many early interventions involve training parents how best to respond to their children and provide appropriate language stimulation. Thus, these interventions are mediated through parents, who in turn are trained and coached in the implementation of interventions by clinicians. As the interventions involve a considerable commitment from clinicians and families, we undertook this review to synthesise the evidence of their effectiveness.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of parent-mediated interventions for improving communication and language development in young children with Down syndrome. Other outcomes are parental behaviour and responsivity, parental stress and satisfaction, and children's non-verbal means of communicating, socialisation and behaviour.
SEARCH METHODS
In January 2018 we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and 14 other databases. We also searched three trials registers, checked the reference lists of relevant reports identified by the electronic searches, searched the websites of professional organizations, and contacted their staff and other researchers working in the field to identify other relevant published, unpublished and ongoing studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs that compared parent-mediated interventions designed to improve communication and language versus teaching/treatment as usual (TAU) or no treatment or delayed (wait-listed) treatment, in children with Down syndrome aged between birth and six years. We included studies delivering the parent-mediated intervention in conjunction with a clinician-mediated intervention, as long as the intervention group was the only group to receive the former and both groups received the latter.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures for data collection and analysis.
MAIN RESULTS
We included three studies involving 45 children aged between 29 months and six years with Down syndrome. Two studies compared parent-mediated interventions versus TAU; the third compared a parent-mediated plus clinician-mediated intervention versus a clinician-mediated intervention alone. Treatment duration varied from 12 weeks to six months. One study provided nine group sessions and four individualised home-based sessions over a 13-week period. Another study provided weekly, individual clinic-based or home-based sessions lasting 1.5 to 2 hours, over a six-month period. The third study provided one 2- to 3-hour group session followed by bi-weekly, individual clinic-based sessions plus once-weekly home-based sessions for 12 weeks. Because of the different study designs and outcome measures used, we were unable to conduct a meta-analysis.We judged all three studies to be at high risk of bias in relation to blinding of participants (not possible due to the nature of the intervention) and blinding of outcome assessors, and at an unclear risk of bias for allocation concealment. We judged one study to be at unclear risk of selection bias, as authors did not report the methods used to generate the random sequence; at high risk of reporting bias, as they did not report on one assessed outcome; and at high risk of detection bias, as the control group had a cointervention and only parents in the intervention group were made aware of the target words for their children. The sample sizes of each included study were very small, meaning that they are unlikely to be representative of the target population.The findings from the three included studies were inconsistent. Two studies found no differences in expressive or receptive language abilities between the groups, whether measured by direct assessment or parent reports. However, they did find that children in the intervention group could use more targeted vocabulary items or utterances with language targets in certain contexts postintervention, compared to those in the control group; this was not maintained 12 months later. The third study found gains for the intervention group on total-language measures immediately postintervention.One study did not find any differences in parental stress scores between the groups at any time point up to 12 months postintervention. All three studies noted differences in most measures of how the parents talked to and interacted with their children postintervention, and in one study most strategies were maintained in the intervention group at 12 months postintervention. No study reported evidence of language attrition following the intervention in either group, while one study found positive outcomes on children's socialisation skills in the intervention group. One study looked at adherence to the treatment through attendance data, finding that mothers in the intervention group attended seven out of nine group sessions and were present for four home visits. No study measured parental use of the strategies outside of the intervention sessions.A grant from the Hospital for Sick Children Foundation (Toronto, Ontario, Canada) funded one study. Another received partial funding from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and the Department of Education in the USA. The remaining study did not specify any funding sources.In light of the serious limitations in methodology, and the small number of studies included, we considered the overall quality of the evidence, as assessed by GRADE, to be very low. This means that we have very little confidence in the results, and further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of treatment effect.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is currently insufficient evidence to determine the effects of parent-mediated interventions for improving the language and communication of children with Down syndrome. We found only three small studies of very low quality. This review highlights the need for well-designed studies, including RCTs, to evaluate the effectiveness of parent-mediated interventions. Trials should use valid, reliable and similar measures of language development, and they should include measures of secondary outcomes more distal to the intervention, such as family well-being. Treatment fidelity, in particular parental dosage of the intervention outside of prescribed sessions, also needs to be documented.
Topics: Child; Child Language; Child, Preschool; Communication; Down Syndrome; Humans; Language Therapy; Mothers; Parents; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Social Skills; Time Factors
PubMed: 30321454
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012089.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2014Pressure ulcers affect approximately 10% of people in hospitals and older people are at highest risk. A correlation between inadequate nutritional intake and the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Pressure ulcers affect approximately 10% of people in hospitals and older people are at highest risk. A correlation between inadequate nutritional intake and the development of pressure ulcers has been suggested by several studies, but the results have been inconsistent.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effects of enteral and parenteral nutrition on the prevention and treatment of pressure ulcers.
SEARCH METHODS
In March 2014, for this first update, we searched The Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Trials Register, the Cochrane Central register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library), the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE) (The Cochrane Library), the Health Technology Assessment Database (HTA) (The Cochrane Library), the Cochrane Methodology Register (The Cochrane Library), NHS Economic Evaluation Database (The Cochrane Library), Ovid Medline, Ovid Embase and EBSCO CINAHL. No date, language or publication status limits were applied.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the effects of enteral or parenteral nutrition on the prevention and treatment of pressure ulcers, which measured the incidence of new ulcers, ulcer healing or changes in pressure ulcer severity. There were no restrictions on types of patient, setting, date, publication status or language.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently screened for inclusion, and disagreement was resolved by discussion. Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed quality using the Cochrane Collaboration tool for assessing risk of bias.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 23 RCTs, many were small (between 9 and 4023 participants, median 88) and at high risk of bias.Eleven trials compared a combination of nutritional supplements, consisting of a minimum of energy and protein in different dosages, for the prevention of pressure ulcers. A meta-analysis of eight trials (6062 participants) that compared the effects of mixed nutritional supplements with standard hospital diet found no clear evidence of an effect of supplementation on pressure ulcer development (pooled RR 0.86; 95% CI 0.73 to 1.00; P value 0.05; I(2) = 13%, random effects). This outcome is at unclear or high risk of bias.Fourteen trials evaluated the effects of nutritional supplements on the healing of existing pressure ulcers: seven trials examined mixed nutritional supplements, three the effects of proteins, two trials examined zinc, and two studies examined ascorbic acid. The included trials were heterogeneous with regard to participants, interventions, comparisons and outcomes and meta-analysis was not appropriate. There was no clear evidence of an improvement in pressure ulcer healing from the nutritional supplements evaluated in any of these individual studies.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is currently no clear evidence of a benefit associated with nutritional interventions for either the prevention or treatment of pressure ulcers. Further trials of high methodological quality are necessary.
Topics: Aged; Dietary Supplements; Enteral Nutrition; Humans; Parenteral Nutrition; Pressure Ulcer; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Wound Healing
PubMed: 24919719
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003216.pub2