Predictive Value of General Movement Assessment for Cerebral Palsy in Routine Clinical Practice

Abstract

When applied in a routine clinical setting, the GMA strongly predicted neurodevelopmental impairments at 2 years in high-risk infants.

Fidgety movements in infants born very preterm: predictive value for cerebral palsy in a clinical multicentre setting

“…In comparison with previous studies using similar techniques, the sensitivity of FMA to detect later CP was low in the present study. Specificity, on the other hand, was high and comparable with previously reported results .…”

Predictive validity of spontaneous early infant movement for later cerebral palsy: a systematic review

“…[37][38][39][40][41]43,44,48,49,51,[54][55][56]59,63,64,74,82,83 Initial index assessments of spontaneous infant movement were generally well conducted with consistent thresholds defined by Prechtl or Hadders-Algra with the exception of one study 60 that used writhing instead of fidgety classifications for 3-month Prechtl GMA. [37][38][39][40][41]43,44,48,49,51,[54][55][56]59,63,64,74,82,83 Initial index assessments of spontaneous infant movement were generally well conducted with consistent thresholds defined by Prechtl or Hadders-Algra with the exception of one study 60 that used writhing instead of fidgety classifications for 3-month Prechtl GMA.…”

Fidgety movements, cerebral palsy, and cognitive ability

“…In a routine clinical setting where background distractors may influence findings, it is important to maintain the reliability of general movement assessment. Two multicenter clinical studies examined infants born very preterm and infants born at term with the general movement assessment for motor outcome (especially CP) at 2 years. To optimize reliability, both studies involved only three general movement raters.…”

“…To optimize reliability, both studies involved only three general movement raters. They confirmed that absent fidgety movements predict CP with high sensitivity and specificity . Subsequently, Datta et al replicate this important finding by involving a large number of raters with different professional backgrounds in a multicenter study.…”