Neuromotor development and visual acuity in premature infants submitted to early visuo-motor stimulation.

Mazzitelli, Carla; Costa, Marcelo Fernandes; Salomão, Solange Rios; Haro, Filomena Maria Buosi de; Berezovsky, Adriana; Durigon, Odete Fernandes; Ventura, Dora Fix

doi:10.3922/j.psns.2008.1.007

Cited by 3 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Of those 13 studies that aimed specifically at enhancing motor development, 9 were RCTs 36-38, 41, 42, 49, 50, 52, 55, 58 and an additional 4 were nonrandomized studies. 63,64,67,68 The type of intervention varied because the focus for some of the studies was to enhance the parent-infant relationship as a means to improving infant development, whereas others were additional support or sessions with either a physiotherapist or occupational therapist. This situation resulted in the theoretical components and implementation of the intervention activities also varying.…”

Section: Aim and Focus Of The Interventionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Motor Development Interventions for Preterm Infants: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

CONTEXTS: Preterm infants are at an increased risk of neurodevelopmental delay. Some studies report positive intervention effects on motor outcomes, but it is currently unclear which motor activities are most effective in the short and longer term. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to identify interventions that improve the motor development of preterm infants. DATA SOURCES: An a priori protocol was agreed upon. Seventeen electronic databases from 1980 to April 2015 and gray literature sources were searched. STUDY SELECTION: Three reviewers screened the articles. DATA EXTRACTION: The outcome of interest was motor skills assessment scores. All data collection and risk of bias assessments were agreed upon by the 3 reviewers. RESULTS: Forty-two publications, which reported results from 36 trials (25 randomized controlled trials and 11 nonrandomized studies) with a total of 3484 infants, met the inclusion criteria. A meta-analysis was conducted by using standardized mean differences on 21 studies, with positive effects found at 3 months (mean 1.37; confidence interval 0.48–2.27), 6 months (0.34; 0.11–0.57), 12 months (0.73; 0.20–1.26), and 24 months (0.28; 0.07–0.49). At 3 months, there was a large and significant effect size for motor-specific interventions (2.00; 0.28–3.72) but not generic interventions (0.33; –0.03 to –0.69). Studies were not excluded on the basis of quality; therefore, heterogeneity was significant and the random-effects model was used. LIMITATIONS: Incomplete or inconsistent reporting of outcome measures limited the data available for meta-analysis beyond 24 months. CONCLUSIONS: A positive intervention effect on motor skills appears to be present up to 24 months’ corrected age. There is some evidence at 3 months that interventions with specific motor components are most effective.

show abstract

Section: Aim and Focus Of The Interventionsmentioning

confidence: 99%