See the published version of this preprint at Systematic Reviews.
This is a preprint, a preliminary version of a manuscript that has not completed peer review at a journal. Research Square does not conduct peer review prior to posting preprints. The posting of a preprint on this server should not be interpreted as an endorsement of its validity or suitability for dissemination as established information or for guiding clinical practice.
Learn more about In Review
A new preprint design is coming!
We have improved readability, clarity, accessibility, and opportunities for engagement.
Protocol
Rudaina Banihani
Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre
Corresponding Author
ORCiD: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3865-3045
License:
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License. Read Full License
Background Prediction of long-term neurodevelopmental outcomes remains an elusive goal for neonatology. Clinical and socioeconomic markers have not proven to be adequately reliable. The limitation in prognostication includes those term and late-preterm infants born with neonatal encephalopathy. The General Movements Assessment tool by Prechtl has demonstrated reliability for identifying infants at risk for neuromotor impairment. This tool is non-invasive and cost-effective. The purpose of this study is to identify the published literature on how this tool applies to the prediction of cerebral palsy in term and late-preterm infants diagnosed with neonatal encephalopathy and so detect the research gaps.
Methods We will conduct a systematic scoping review for data on sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value and describe the strengths and limitations of the results. This review will consider studies that included neonates more than or equal to 34+0 weeks gestational age, diagnosed with neonatal encephalopathy, with a General Movements Assessment done between birth to six months of life and an assessment for cerebral palsy by at least two years of age. Experimental and quasi-experimental study designs including randomized controlled trials, non-randomized controlled trials, before and after studies, interrupted time-series studies and systematic reviews will be considered. Text and opinion papers will not be considered for inclusion in this scoping review as this is a highly specific and medical topic. Studies in the English language only will be considered. Studies published from at least 1970 will be included as this is around the time when the General Movements Assessment was first introduced in neonatology as a potential predictor of neuromotor outcomes. We will search five databases (MEDLINE, Embase, PsychINFO, Scopus and CINAHL). Two reviewers will conduct all screening and data extraction independently. The articles will be categorized according key findings and a critical appraisal performed.
Discussion The results of this review will guide future research to improve early identification and timely intervention in neonates with neonatal encephalopathy at risk of neuromotor impairment.
Systematic review registration
Title registration with Joanna Briggs Institute.
Keywords
Neonatal encephalopathy, general movement assessment, Prechtl, hypoxia-ischemia encephalopathy, cerebral palsy
This is a list of supplementary files associated with this preprint. Click to download.
Loading...
Badges
Prescreen
This manuscript passed our Prescreen assessment
Complete author information
Appropriate declaration statements
Potential risks to human health
Prescreen
Peer Review Timeline
CURRENT STATUS: Published
View the published article at Systematic Reviews.
No community comments so far
Editorial decision: Accept
On 10 Apr, 2020
Review #2 received
Received 07 Apr, 2020
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 31 Mar, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 27 Mar, 2020
Editor assigned
On 26 Mar, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 26 Mar, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 26 Mar, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 25 Mar, 2020
Editor invited
On 25 Mar, 2020
No comments provided
Editorial decision: Minor revision
On 24 Mar, 2020
Review #2 received
Received 23 Mar, 2020
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 19 Mar, 2020
Editor assigned
On 17 Mar, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 17 Mar, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 17 Mar, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 17 Mar, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 16 Mar, 2020
Editor invited
On 16 Mar, 2020
Version 1
Posted 15 Jan, 2020
No comments provided
Editorial decision: Minor revision
On 27 Feb, 2020
Review #2 received
Received 25 Feb, 2020
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 12 Feb, 2020
Reviewer #3 agreed
On 12 Feb, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 03 Feb, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 03 Feb, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 03 Feb, 2020
Editor assigned
On 29 Jan, 2020
Editor invited
On 28 Jan, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 14 Jan, 2020
First submitted
On 13 Jan, 2020
Metrics
Comments: 0
PDF Downloads: ...
HTML Views: ...
Subject Areas
Obstetrics & Gynecology
Learn more about our company.
A new preprint design is coming!
We have improved readability, clarity, accessibility, and opportunities for engagement.
See the published version of this preprint at Systematic Reviews.
This is a preprint, a preliminary version of a manuscript that has not completed peer review at a journal. Research Square does not conduct peer review prior to posting preprints. The posting of a preprint on this server should not be interpreted as an endorsement of its validity or suitability for dissemination as established information or for guiding clinical practice.
Learn more about In Review
Protocol
Rudaina Banihani
Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre
Corresponding Author
ORCiD: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3865-3045
Badges
Prescreen
This manuscript passed our Prescreen assessment
Complete author information
Appropriate declaration statements
Potential risks to human health
Prescreen
Peer Review Timeline
CURRENT STATUS: Published
View the published article at Systematic Reviews.
No community comments so far
Editorial decision: Accept
On 10 Apr, 2020
Review #2 received
Received 07 Apr, 2020
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 31 Mar, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 27 Mar, 2020
Editor assigned
On 26 Mar, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 26 Mar, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 26 Mar, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 25 Mar, 2020
Editor invited
On 25 Mar, 2020
No comments provided
Editorial decision: Minor revision
On 24 Mar, 2020
Review #2 received
Received 23 Mar, 2020
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 19 Mar, 2020
Editor assigned
On 17 Mar, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 17 Mar, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 17 Mar, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 17 Mar, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 16 Mar, 2020
Editor invited
On 16 Mar, 2020
Version 1
Posted 15 Jan, 2020
No comments provided
Editorial decision: Minor revision
On 27 Feb, 2020
Review #2 received
Received 25 Feb, 2020
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 12 Feb, 2020
Reviewer #3 agreed
On 12 Feb, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 03 Feb, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 03 Feb, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 03 Feb, 2020
Editor assigned
On 29 Jan, 2020
Editor invited
On 28 Jan, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 14 Jan, 2020
First submitted
On 13 Jan, 2020
Metrics
Comments: 0
PDF Downloads: ...
HTML Views: ...
Subject Areas
Obstetrics & Gynecology
License:
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License. Read Full License
View the published article at Systematic Reviews.
Background Prediction of long-term neurodevelopmental outcomes remains an elusive goal for neonatology. Clinical and socioeconomic markers have not proven to be adequately reliable. The limitation in prognostication includes those term and late-preterm infants born with neonatal encephalopathy. The General Movements Assessment tool by Prechtl has demonstrated reliability for identifying infants at risk for neuromotor impairment. This tool is non-invasive and cost-effective. The purpose of this study is to identify the published literature on how this tool applies to the prediction of cerebral palsy in term and late-preterm infants diagnosed with neonatal encephalopathy and so detect the research gaps.
Methods We will conduct a systematic scoping review for data on sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value and describe the strengths and limitations of the results. This review will consider studies that included neonates more than or equal to 34+0 weeks gestational age, diagnosed with neonatal encephalopathy, with a General Movements Assessment done between birth to six months of life and an assessment for cerebral palsy by at least two years of age. Experimental and quasi-experimental study designs including randomized controlled trials, non-randomized controlled trials, before and after studies, interrupted time-series studies and systematic reviews will be considered. Text and opinion papers will not be considered for inclusion in this scoping review as this is a highly specific and medical topic. Studies in the English language only will be considered. Studies published from at least 1970 will be included as this is around the time when the General Movements Assessment was first introduced in neonatology as a potential predictor of neuromotor outcomes. We will search five databases (MEDLINE, Embase, PsychINFO, Scopus and CINAHL). Two reviewers will conduct all screening and data extraction independently. The articles will be categorized according key findings and a critical appraisal performed.
Discussion The results of this review will guide future research to improve early identification and timely intervention in neonates with neonatal encephalopathy at risk of neuromotor impairment.
Systematic review registration
Title registration with Joanna Briggs Institute.
This is a list of supplementary files associated with this preprint. Click to download.
Loading...