Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Special Feature
  • Published:

Prognostic neurodevelopmental testing of preterm infants: do we need to change the paradigm?

Abstract

Longitudinal follow-up with assessment of developmental status at about 2 years of age is routine for high-risk newborns. The results of these assessments can be used for many purposes, including helping physicians, parents, and teachers plan educational or developmental interventions. These assessments also provide outcome measures for clinical research studies. Outcome results may also serve as a source of information for clinicians when counseling parents regarding provision of care for extreme preterm infants. Consideration should be given to use of different outcome metrics based on the purpose for testing. Categorization of composite cognitive, motor and neurosensory findings to define levels of impairment should be limited to research. Planning for individual interventions is better guided by descriptive findings. Current tools for assessing neurodevelopmental status at 2 years of age have important limitations. First, outcomes at early ages do not always predict function later in life. They are, at best, an estimate of longer-term outcomes, with important individual variation. For infants without severe neurologic injury, postnatal environmental factors play a predominant role in determining long-term cognitive and academic outcomes. Further investigations should assess quality of life and other considerations that are important for parents when making decisions about neonatal intensive care unit care for their infant.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Relevant articles

Open Access articles citing this article.

Access options

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

from$1.95

to$39.95

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

References

  1. Silverman W, Blodi FC, Locke JC . Incidence of retrolental fibroplasia in a New York nursery. AMA Arch Ophthalmol 1952; 48: 698–711.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Silverman W . A difference in mortality rate and incidence of kernicterus among premature infants allotted to two prophylactic antibacterial regimens. Pediatrics 1956; 18: 614–624.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Johnson A . Disability and perinatal care. Pediatrics 1995; 95: 272–274.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. American Academy of Pediatrics, Committee on Fetus and Newborn. Hospital discharge of the high-risk neonate. Pediatrics 2008; 122: 1119–1126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Vohr BW, O’Shea M, Wright LL . Longitudinal multicenter follow-up of high risk infants: why, who, when and what to assess. Semin Perinatol 2003; 27: 333–342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Stephens BE, Vohr BR . Neurodevelopmental outcome of the premature infant. Pediatr Clin North Am 2009; 56: 631–646.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Aylward GP . Developmental screening and assessment: What are we thinking? J Dev Behav Pediatr 2009; 30: 169–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. McCall RB A conceptual approach to early mental development. In: Lewis M (ed.). Origins of Intelligence: Infancy and Early Childhood. Plenum Press: New York, NY, USA, 1976..

  9. Bayley N . Bayley Scales of Infant Development. Psychological Corp: New York, NY, USA, 1969.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Bayley N . Bayley Scales of Infant Development, 2nd edn. The Psychological Corporation: San Antonio, TX, 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Bayley N . Bayley Scales of Infant and Toddler Development, 3rd edn. PsychCorp: San Antonio TX, 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Acton BV, Biggs W, Creighton D, Penner K, Switzer HN, Petrie JH et al. (2011) Overestimating neurodevelopment using the Bayley-III after early complex cardiac surgery. Pediatrics 2011; 128: 794–800.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Aylward GP . Continuing issues with the Bayley-III: Where to go from here. J Dev Behav Pediatr 2013; 34: 697–701.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Aylward GP, Aylward BS . The changing yardstick in measurement of cognitive abilities in infancy. J Dev Behav Pediatr 2011; 32: 465–468.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Lowe JR, Erickson SJ, Schrader R, Duncan AF . Comparison of the Bayley II Mental Developmental Index and the Bayley III cognitive scale: are we measuring the same thing? Acta Paediatr 2012; 101: e55–e58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Moore T, Johnson S, Haider S, Marlow N . Relationship between test scores using the second and third editions of the Bayley Scales in extremely preterm children. J Pediatr 2012; 160: 553–558.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Milne S, McDonald J, Comino EJ . The use of the Bayley Scales of Infant and Toddler Development III with clinical populations: a preliminary exploration. Phys Occup Ther Pediatr 2012; 32: 24–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Vohr BR, Stephens BE, Higgins RD, Bann CM, Hintz SR, Das A et al. The NICHD Neonatal Research Network. Are outcomes of extremely preterm infants improving? Impact of Bayley assessment on outcomes. J Pediatr 2012; 161: 222–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Flynn JR . Searching for justice. The discovery of IQ gains over time. Am Psychologist 1999; 54: 728–748.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Doyle LW, Anderson PJ . Do we need to correct age for prematurity when assessing children? J Pediatr 2016; 173: 11–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Wilson-Ching M, Pascoe L, Doyle LW, Anderson PJ . Effects of correcting for prematurity on cognitive test scores in childhood. J Paediatr Child Health 2014; 50: 182–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Wilson SL, Cradock MM . Review: accounting for prematurity in developmental assessment and the use of age-adjusted scores. J Pediatr Psychol 2004; 29: 641–649.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Hack M, Flannery DJ, Schluchter M, Cartar L, Borawski E, Klein N . Outcomes in young adulthood for very-low-birth-weight infants. N Engl J Med 2002; 346: 149–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Cheong JL, Anderson PJ, Roberts G, Burnett AC, Lee KJ, Thompson DK et al. Contribution of brain size to IQ and educational underperformance in extremely preterm adolescents. PloS ONE 2013; 8: e77475.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Eide MG, Oyen N, Skjaerven R, Bjerkedal T . Associations of birth size, gestational age, and adult size with intellectual performance: evidence from a cohort of Norwegian men. Pediatr Res 2007; 62: 636–642.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Saigal S, Ferro MA, Van Lieshout RJ, Schmidt LA, Morrison KM, Boyle MH . Health-related quality of life trajectories of extremely low birth weight survivors into adulthood. J Pediatr 2016; 179: 68–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Hack M, Taylor HG, Drotar D, Schluchter M, Cartar L, Wilson-Costello D et al. Poor predictive validity of the Bayley Scales of Infant Development for cognitive function of extremely low birth weight children at school age. Pediatrics 2005; 116: 333–341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Roberts G, Anderson PJ, Doyle LW . The stability of the diagnosis of developmental disability between ages 2 and 8 in a geographic cohort of very preterm children born in 1997. Arch Dis Child 2010; 95: 786–790.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Aylward GP . The conundrum of prediction. Pediatrics 2005; 116: 491–492.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Breslau N, Chilcoat HD, Susser ES, Matte T, Liang K-Y, Peterson EL . Stability and change in children's intelligence quotient scores: a comparison of two socioeconomically disparate communities. Am J Epidemiol 2001; 154: 711–717.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Ment LR, Vohr B, Allan W, Katz KH, Schneider KC, Westerveld M et al. Change in cognitive function over time in very low-birth-weight infants. JAMA 2003; 289: 705–711.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Singer LT, Yamashita TS, Lilien L, Collin M, Baley J . A longitudinal study of infants with bronchopulmonary dysplasia and very low birthweight. Pediatrics 1997; 100: 987–993.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Kilbride HW, Thorstad K, Daily DK . Preschool outcome of less than 801-gram infants compared with full-term siblings. Pediatrics 2004; 113: 742–747.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Doyle LW, Cheong JL, Burnett A et al. Biological and social influences on outcomes of extreme-preterm/low-birth weight adolescents. Pediatrics 2015; 136: 1513–1520.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Pederson DR, Bento S, Chance GW, Evans B, Fox AM . Maternal emotional responses to preterm birth. Am J Orthopsychiatry 1987; 57: 15–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Singer LT, Salvator A, Guo S, Collin M, Lilien L, Baley J . Maternal psychological distress and parenting stress after the birth of a very low-birth-weight infant. JAMA 1999; 281: 799–805.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Singer LT, Davillier M, Bruening P, Hawkins S, Yamashita TS . Social support, psychological distress, and parenting strains in mothers of very low birthweight infants. Fam Relations 1996; 45: 343–350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Raju TNK, Mercer BM, Burchfield DJ, Joseph GR . Periviable birth: executive summary of a Joint Worship by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine, American Academy of Pediatrics, and American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. J Perinatol 2014; 334: 333–342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Tyson JE, Parikh NA, Langer J, Green C, Higgins RD . National Institute of Child health and Human Development Neonatal Research Network. Intensive care for extreme prematurity-moving beyond gestational age. N Engl J Med 2008; 358: 1672–1681.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Kaempf JW, Tomlinson MW, Campbell B, Ferguson L, Stewart VT . Counseling pregnant women who may deliver extremely premature infants: medical care guidelines, family choices, and neonatal outcomes. Pediatrics 2009; 123: 1509–1515.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Kaempf JW, Tomlinson MW, Tuohey J . Extremely premature birth and the choice of neonatal intensive care versus palliative comfort care: an 18-year single-center experience. J Perinatol 2016; 36: 190–195.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Janvier A, Lorenz JM, Lantos JD . Antenatal counseling for parents facing an extremely preterm birth: limitations of the medical evidence. Acta Paediatr 2012; 101: 800–804.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Gaucher N, Nadeau S, Barbier A, Janvier A, Pavot A . Personalized antenatal consultations for preterm labor: responding to mothers’ expectations. J Pediatr 2016; 187: 130–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. WHOQOL Group. Development of the WHOQOL: rationale and current status. Int J Mental Health 1994; 23: 24–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Saigal S, Feeny D, Rosenbaum P, Furlong W, Burrows E, Stoskopf B . Self-perceived health status and health-related quality of life of extremely low-birth-weight infants at adolescence. JAMA 1996; 276: 453–459.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Saigal S, Stoskopf BI, Feeny D, Fulong W, Burrows E, Rosenbaum P et al. Differences in preferences for neonatal outcomes among health care professionals, parents, and adolescents. JAMA 1999; 281: 1991–1997.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Saigal S, Stoskopf B, Pinelli J, Streiner D, Hoult L, Paneth N, Goddeeris J . Self-perceived health-related quality of life of former extremely low birth weight infants at young adulthood. Pediatrics 2006; 118: 1140–1148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Salmeen K, Janvier A, Sayeed SA, Drey EA, Lantos J, Partridge JC . Perspectives on anticipated quality-of-life and recommendations for neonatal intensive care: a survey of neonatal providers. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2015; 28: 1461–1466.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to H W Kilbride.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Additional information

This manuscript is based on a symposium presentation at the Pediatric Academic Societies (PAS) meeting in Baltimore, MD, 3 May 2016.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kilbride, H., Aylward, G., Doyle, L. et al. Prognostic neurodevelopmental testing of preterm infants: do we need to change the paradigm?. J Perinatol 37, 475–479 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1038/jp.2017.12

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/jp.2017.12

This article is cited by

Search

Quick links