Neurodevelopmental screening for neonates less than 44 weeks gestation in low-income and middle-income countries: a systematic review.

IF 6.1 2区 医学 Q1 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH BMJ Global Health Pub Date : 2025-04-02 DOI:10.1136/bmjgh-2024-017683
Benjamin J S Al-Haddad, Elisabeth Olson, Erin Reardon, Emmanuel Bonney
{"title":"Neurodevelopmental screening for neonates less than 44 weeks gestation in low-income and middle-income countries: a systematic review.","authors":"Benjamin J S Al-Haddad, Elisabeth Olson, Erin Reardon, Emmanuel Bonney","doi":"10.1136/bmjgh-2024-017683","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>With global improvements in neonatal survival, more small and sick newborns in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) are at increased risk of neurodevelopmental disability and delay. While there is increased recognition of the importance of early identification of neurodevelopmental differences and timely initiation of therapy, little is known about standardised neonatal neurodevelopmental screening tools in these settings.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We performed a systematic review to determine what standardised neurodevelopmental assessments had been used in LMICs for neonates before 44 weeks corrected gestational age and published in the literature. We excluded short-term clinical assessments designed for specific pathologies. We performed the search across seven databases, screened studies for eligibility and inclusion and extracted bibliographic data, country, patient characteristics, assessments and study aims. Results were summarised in tabular and graphical presentation.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There were 2477 records screened, yielding 67 studies for inclusion. Studies in Asian countries made up 65.7%, while Latin America and Africa made up 19.4% and 16.4%, respectively. Physicians and paramedical staff performed the screening assessments in only 16.4% of studies, and 92.5% of studies used inpatient recruitment. The Neonatal Behavioural Neurological Assessment (25.4%) was the most frequently used screening tool followed by the General Movements Assessment (22.4%), the Hammersmith Neonatal Neurological Examination/Dubowitz (16.4%) and the Neonatal Behavioural Assessment Scale (10.4%).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>We did not identify any one neonatal neurodevelopmental screening assessment that is rapid, globally validated, identifies targets for intervention, has high predictive prognostic value and does not require neonatal or kinesiologic expertise or uncommon equipment. Such an assessment, in concert with evidence-based intervention, therapeutic delivery platforms, established referral pathways and trained personnel would improve functional outcomes for high-risk small and sick neonates in LMICs.</p>","PeriodicalId":9137,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Global Health","volume":"10 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":6.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11966953/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ Global Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2024-017683","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: With global improvements in neonatal survival, more small and sick newborns in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) are at increased risk of neurodevelopmental disability and delay. While there is increased recognition of the importance of early identification of neurodevelopmental differences and timely initiation of therapy, little is known about standardised neonatal neurodevelopmental screening tools in these settings.

Methods: We performed a systematic review to determine what standardised neurodevelopmental assessments had been used in LMICs for neonates before 44 weeks corrected gestational age and published in the literature. We excluded short-term clinical assessments designed for specific pathologies. We performed the search across seven databases, screened studies for eligibility and inclusion and extracted bibliographic data, country, patient characteristics, assessments and study aims. Results were summarised in tabular and graphical presentation.

Results: There were 2477 records screened, yielding 67 studies for inclusion. Studies in Asian countries made up 65.7%, while Latin America and Africa made up 19.4% and 16.4%, respectively. Physicians and paramedical staff performed the screening assessments in only 16.4% of studies, and 92.5% of studies used inpatient recruitment. The Neonatal Behavioural Neurological Assessment (25.4%) was the most frequently used screening tool followed by the General Movements Assessment (22.4%), the Hammersmith Neonatal Neurological Examination/Dubowitz (16.4%) and the Neonatal Behavioural Assessment Scale (10.4%).

Conclusions: We did not identify any one neonatal neurodevelopmental screening assessment that is rapid, globally validated, identifies targets for intervention, has high predictive prognostic value and does not require neonatal or kinesiologic expertise or uncommon equipment. Such an assessment, in concert with evidence-based intervention, therapeutic delivery platforms, established referral pathways and trained personnel would improve functional outcomes for high-risk small and sick neonates in LMICs.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
低收入和中等收入国家妊娠44周以下新生儿的神经发育筛查:一项系统综述。
随着全球新生儿存活率的提高,低收入和中等收入国家(LMICs)越来越多的小新生儿和患病新生儿面临神经发育障碍和发育迟缓的风险增加。虽然人们越来越认识到早期识别神经发育差异和及时开始治疗的重要性,但在这些情况下,对标准化的新生儿神经发育筛查工具知之甚少。方法:我们进行了一项系统综述,以确定哪些标准化的神经发育评估已在LMICs中用于校正胎龄44周前的新生儿,并已在文献中发表。我们排除了针对特定病理设计的短期临床评估。我们在七个数据库中进行了检索,筛选了研究的资格和纳入,并提取了文献数据、国家、患者特征、评估和研究目的。结果以表格和图形形式总结。结果:共筛选2477条记录,纳入67项研究。亚洲国家占65.7%,拉丁美洲和非洲分别占19.4%和16.4%。医生和辅助医务人员仅在16.4%的研究中进行筛查评估,92.5%的研究使用住院患者招募。新生儿行为神经学评估(25.4%)是最常用的筛查工具,其次是一般运动评估(22.4%),Hammersmith新生儿神经学检查/Dubowitz(16.4%)和新生儿行为评估量表(10.4%)。结论:我们没有发现任何一种新生儿神经发育筛查评估是快速的,全球有效的,确定干预目标的,具有高预测预后价值的,不需要新生儿或运动学专业知识或不常见的设备。这样的评估,配合循证干预、治疗交付平台、已建立的转诊途径和训练有素的人员,将改善低收入中低收入国家高危小病新生儿的功能结局。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
BMJ Global Health
BMJ Global Health Medicine-Health Policy
CiteScore
11.40
自引率
4.90%
发文量
429
审稿时长
18 weeks
期刊介绍: BMJ Global Health is an online Open Access journal from BMJ that focuses on publishing high-quality peer-reviewed content pertinent to individuals engaged in global health, including policy makers, funders, researchers, clinicians, and frontline healthcare workers. The journal encompasses all facets of global health, with a special emphasis on submissions addressing underfunded areas such as non-communicable diseases (NCDs). It welcomes research across all study phases and designs, from study protocols to phase I trials to meta-analyses, including small or specialized studies. The journal also encourages opinionated discussions on controversial topics.
期刊最新文献
Extreme rainfall and anaemia among children under five in 46 low- and middle-income countries. Bringing severe non-communicable disease care to district-level hospitals in Nepal: PEN-Plus experience and regional policy implications. Opportunities and challenges in integrating family planning and nutrition services in Tanzania: a mixed-methods study. Leveraging connections between family planning and nutrition to improve the health of women. Beyond parallel programmes: a roadmap for operational integration of family planning and nutrition in low- and middle-income countries.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1