This preprint is under consideration at BMC Pediatrics. A preprint is 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.
Research article
License:
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License. Read Full License
Background : As preterm infants’ neurodevelopment is shaped by NICU-related factors during their hospitalization, it is essential to evaluate which interventions are more beneficial for their neurodevelopment at this specific time. The primary objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the effectiveness of interventions initiated during NICU hospitalization on preterm infants’ early neurodevelopment during their hospitalization and up to two weeks corrected age (CA).
Methods: This systematic review referred to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses [PRISMA] guidelines and was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42017047072). We searched CINAHL, MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE (OVID), Cochrane Systematic Reviews, CENTRAL, and Web of Science from 2002 to February 2020. Two independent reviewers performed the study selection, data extraction, assessment of risks of bias and quality of evidence.
Results: Findings of 12 studies involving 901 preterm infants were synthesized. We combined three studies in a meta-analysis showing that compared to standard care, NIDCAP intervention is effective in improving preterm infants’ neurobehavioral and neurological development at two weeks CA. We also combined two other studies in a meta-analysis indicating that parental participation did not significantly improve preterm infants’ neurobehavioral development during NICU hospitalization. For all other interventions (i.e., developmental care, sensory stimulation, music and physical therapy), the synthesis of results shows that compared to standard care or other types of comparators, the effectiveness was either controversial or partially effective.
Conclusions: The overall quality of evidence was rated low to very low. Future studies are needed to identify interventions that are the most effective in promoting preterm infants’ neurodevelopment during NICU hospitalization or close to term age. Interventions should be appropriately designed to allow comparison with previous studies and a combination of different instruments could provide a more global assessment of preterm infants’ neurodevelopment and thus allow for comparisons across studies.
Systematic Review Protocol Registration: Prospero CRD42017047072
Keywords
neurodevelopment, preterm infants, systematic review, interventions, NICU, meta-analysis
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6
This is a list of supplementary files associated with this preprint. Click to download.
- PRISMA2009checklist.doc
- AdditionalFile8TableS3Tablequalityofevidence.docx
- AdditionalFile7FigureS5Metaanalysis.docx
- AdditionalFile6FigureS4Metaanalysis.docx
- AdditionalFile5FigureS3Metaanalysis.docx
- AdditionalFile4FigureS2Metaanalysis.docx
- AdditionalFile3FigureS1Summarizationriskofbias.docx
- AdditionalFile2TableS2Risksofbiasfinalforreal.docx
- AdditionalFile1TableS1Searchstrategy.docx
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: Under Review
The most recent version of this article is available here.
No community comments so far
Editorial decision: Minor revision
On 18 Jan, 2021
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 14 Jan, 2021
Review #2 received
Received 14 Jan, 2021
Review #1 received
Received 14 Jan, 2021
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 15 Nov, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 15 Nov, 2020
Editor assigned
On 09 Nov, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 09 Nov, 2020
Editor invited
On 09 Nov, 2020
Version 2
Posted 10 Sep, 2020
No comments provided
Editorial decision: Minor revision
On 14 Oct, 2020
Review #3 received
Received 11 Oct, 2020
Review #4 received
Received 11 Oct, 2020
Reviewer #4 agreed
On 15 Sep, 2020
Reviewer #3 agreed
On 15 Sep, 2020
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 09 Sep, 2020
Review #2 received
Received 09 Sep, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 09 Sep, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 09 Sep, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 08 Sep, 2020
Editor assigned
On 06 Sep, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 05 Sep, 2020
Editor invited
On 05 Sep, 2020
No comments provided
Editorial decision: Minor revision
On 06 Aug, 2020
Review #2 received
Received 06 Aug, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 05 Aug, 2020
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 10 Jul, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 07 Jul, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 07 Jul, 2020
Editor assigned
On 30 Jun, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 29 Jun, 2020
Editor invited
On 29 Jun, 2020
Metrics
Comments: 0
PDF Downloads: ...
HTML Views: ...
Learn more about our company.
A new preprint design is coming!
We have improved readability, clarity, accessibility, and opportunities for engagement.
This preprint is under consideration at BMC Pediatrics. A preprint is 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
Research article
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: Under Review
The most recent version of this article is available here.
No community comments so far
Editorial decision: Minor revision
On 18 Jan, 2021
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 14 Jan, 2021
Review #2 received
Received 14 Jan, 2021
Review #1 received
Received 14 Jan, 2021
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 15 Nov, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 15 Nov, 2020
Editor assigned
On 09 Nov, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 09 Nov, 2020
Editor invited
On 09 Nov, 2020
Version 2
Posted 10 Sep, 2020
No comments provided
Editorial decision: Minor revision
On 14 Oct, 2020
Review #3 received
Received 11 Oct, 2020
Review #4 received
Received 11 Oct, 2020
Reviewer #4 agreed
On 15 Sep, 2020
Reviewer #3 agreed
On 15 Sep, 2020
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 09 Sep, 2020
Review #2 received
Received 09 Sep, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 09 Sep, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 09 Sep, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 08 Sep, 2020
Editor assigned
On 06 Sep, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 05 Sep, 2020
Editor invited
On 05 Sep, 2020
No comments provided
Editorial decision: Minor revision
On 06 Aug, 2020
Review #2 received
Received 06 Aug, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 05 Aug, 2020
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 10 Jul, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 07 Jul, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 07 Jul, 2020
Editor assigned
On 30 Jun, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 29 Jun, 2020
Editor invited
On 29 Jun, 2020
Metrics
Comments: 0
PDF Downloads: ...
HTML Views: ...
License:
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License. Read Full License
The most recent version of this article is available here.
Background : As preterm infants’ neurodevelopment is shaped by NICU-related factors during their hospitalization, it is essential to evaluate which interventions are more beneficial for their neurodevelopment at this specific time. The primary objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the effectiveness of interventions initiated during NICU hospitalization on preterm infants’ early neurodevelopment during their hospitalization and up to two weeks corrected age (CA).
Methods: This systematic review referred to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses [PRISMA] guidelines and was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42017047072). We searched CINAHL, MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE (OVID), Cochrane Systematic Reviews, CENTRAL, and Web of Science from 2002 to February 2020. Two independent reviewers performed the study selection, data extraction, assessment of risks of bias and quality of evidence.
Results: Findings of 12 studies involving 901 preterm infants were synthesized. We combined three studies in a meta-analysis showing that compared to standard care, NIDCAP intervention is effective in improving preterm infants’ neurobehavioral and neurological development at two weeks CA. We also combined two other studies in a meta-analysis indicating that parental participation did not significantly improve preterm infants’ neurobehavioral development during NICU hospitalization. For all other interventions (i.e., developmental care, sensory stimulation, music and physical therapy), the synthesis of results shows that compared to standard care or other types of comparators, the effectiveness was either controversial or partially effective.
Conclusions: The overall quality of evidence was rated low to very low. Future studies are needed to identify interventions that are the most effective in promoting preterm infants’ neurodevelopment during NICU hospitalization or close to term age. Interventions should be appropriately designed to allow comparison with previous studies and a combination of different instruments could provide a more global assessment of preterm infants’ neurodevelopment and thus allow for comparisons across studies.
Systematic Review Protocol Registration: Prospero CRD42017047072
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6
This is a list of supplementary files associated with this preprint. Click to download.
- PRISMA2009checklist.doc
- AdditionalFile8TableS3Tablequalityofevidence.docx
- AdditionalFile7FigureS5Metaanalysis.docx
- AdditionalFile6FigureS4Metaanalysis.docx
- AdditionalFile5FigureS3Metaanalysis.docx
- AdditionalFile4FigureS2Metaanalysis.docx
- AdditionalFile3FigureS1Summarizationriskofbias.docx
- AdditionalFile2TableS2Risksofbiasfinalforreal.docx
- AdditionalFile1TableS1Searchstrategy.docx
Loading...