Michelle Berube, Jessica Edwards, Kelcey Erlandson,
Stephanie Haug, Heather Johnstone, Meghan Meagher,
Shirley Sarkodee-Adoo
Supervisor: Jill Zwicker

Prenatal care, obstetrics, and neonatal
medicine care has improved significantly in
the past few decades
(1)

Increased survival rates among infants born
preterm (<37 weeks) and low birth weight
(LBW; <2,500g)
(1)

These children are more likely to experience
difficulties with growth, learning, behavior
and motor development
(2,3,4)

Deficits include coordination, balance,
gross and fine motor control and
visomotor integration
(5-8)

Confusing terminology
(9)
› ‘clumsy child syndrome’, ‘developmental
dyspraxia’ and ‘perceptulmotor dysfunction’

Developmental Coordination Disorder
(DCD) was defined in 1994 by the DSM IV

An impairment of motor performance
sufficient to produce functional
performance deficits not explicable by
the child’s age or intellect, or by other
diagnosable neurological or psychiatric
disorder
(10)
o
Difficulties with handwriting, typing,
ball skills, skipping, hopping, and a
variety of other skills
(10)
o
Potential long term implications
o
Lack of evidence that shows a
relationship between LBW/preterm
birth with DCD
(6,10)
What is the relationship between preterm birth
and/or low birth weight, and the occurrence of
Developmental Coordination Disorder in school
age children?
MEDLINE (1950–June 2010)
EMBASE (1980–June 2010)
CINAHL (1982–June 2010)
PsycINFO (1975–June 2010)
Educational Resource Information Center
(ERIC) (1969–June 2010)
 PEDro (1929–June 2010)
 Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews





(1998–June 2010)

Final searches completed June 30, 2010
Exposure
Outcome
Infant, Premature
Motor Skills Disorders
premature infant
Clumsy child Syndrome
prematurity
DCD
Infant, Low Birth Weight
Developmental Coordination
disorder
low birth weight infant
Motor Impairment
Infant, Very Low Birth Weight
Motor Skill Disorder
very low birth weight
Developmental disability
extremely low birth weight infant
And 33 additional keywords!
1.
Study population was school-age children
(age 5-18 years)
2.
Study included children exposed to
preterm birth (<37weeks) and/or low birth
weight (<2,500g)
3.
Focus of the study was on motor
coordination impairments
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
No comparison group
Included children diagnosed with comorbidities other than ADD or ADHD
Did not include a standardized measure of
motor impairment
Did not have separate data for school-aged
children
Focused on children small for gestational age
Focused on medical intervention
Qualitative in nature
Not published in English
Citations identified through electronic database search
(CINAHL, Chochrane, Embase, ERIC, Medline, PEDro, PsycINFO)
(n = 2527)
Citations put forward for review after
duplicates removed
(n = 2123)
Citations excluded based on
inclusion and exclusion criteria
(n = 1855)
Citations Abstracts put forward for review
(n = 268)
Abstracts excluded based on
inclusion and exclusion criteria
(n = 186)
Full text articles assessed for eligibility
(n = 82)
Studies excluded after full
text review (n = 62)
Not relevant design n = 1
No comparison group = 15
Comparison group not fully
explained n = 5
No standardized measure of
motor impairment and/or no
separate data for school aged
children n = 41
Studies included in qualitative synthesis
(n = 20)
Studies included in meta-analysis
(n = 5)
Citations identified through electronic database search
(CINAHL, Chochrane, Embase, ERIC, Medline, PEDro, PsycINFO)
(n = 2527)
Citations put forward for review after
duplicates removed
(n = 2123)
Citations excluded based on
inclusion and exclusion criteria
(n = 1855)
Citations Abstracts put forward for review
(n = 268)
Abstracts excluded based on
inclusion and exclusion criteria
(n = 186)
Full text articles assessed for eligibility
(n = 82)
Studies excluded after full
text review (n = 62)
Not relevant design n = 1
No comparison group = 15
Comparison group not fully
explained n = 5
No standardized measure of
motor impairment and/or no
separate data for school aged
children n = 41
Studies included in qualitative synthesis
(n = 20)
Studies included in meta-analysis
(n = 5)
Citations identified through electronic database search
(CINAHL, Chochrane, Embase, ERIC, Medline, PEDro, PsycINFO)
(n = 2527)
Citations put forward for review after
duplicates removed
(n = 2123)
Citations excluded based on
inclusion and exclusion criteria
(n = 1855)
Citations Abstracts put forward for review
(n = 268)
Abstracts excluded based on
inclusion and exclusion criteria
(n = 186)
Full text articles assessed for eligibility
(n = 82)
Studies excluded after full
text review (n = 62)
Not relevant design n = 1
No comparison group = 15
Comparison group not fully
explained n = 5
No standardized measure of
motor impairment and/or no
separate data for school aged
children n = 41
Studies included in qualitative synthesis
(n = 20)
Studies included in meta-analysis
(n = 5)
Citations identified through electronic database search
(CINAHL, Chochrane, Embase, ERIC, Medline, PEDro, PsycINFO)
(n = 2527)
Citations put forward for review after
duplicates removed
(n = 2123)
Citations excluded based on
inclusion and exclusion criteria
(n = 1855)
Citations Abstracts put forward for review
(n = 268)
Abstracts excluded based on
inclusion and exclusion criteria
(n = 186)
Full text articles assessed for eligibility
(n = 82)
Studies excluded after full
text review (n = 62)
Not relevant design n = 1
No comparison group = 15
Comparison group not fully
explained n = 5
No standardized measure of
motor impairment and/or no
separate data for school aged
children n = 41
Studies included in qualitative synthesis
(n = 20)
Studies included in meta-analysis
(n = 5)
Citations identified through electronic database search
(CINAHL, Chochrane, Embase, ERIC, Medline, PEDro, PsycINFO)
(n = 2527)
Citations put forward for review after
duplicates removed
(n = 2123)
Citations excluded based on
inclusion and exclusion criteria
(n = 1855)
Citations Abstracts put forward for review
(n = 268)
Abstracts excluded based on
inclusion and exclusion criteria
(n = 186)
Full text articles assessed for eligibility
(n = 82)
Studies excluded after full
text review (n = 62)
Not relevant design n = 1
No comparison group = 15
Comparison group not fully
explained n = 5
No standardized measure of
motor impairment and/or no
separate data for school aged
children n = 41
Studies included in qualitative synthesis
(n = 20)
Studies included in meta-analysis
(n = 5)

Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment
Scale
› Designed for non-randomized studies

Study quality was based on 9 criteria within
3 domains
› Selection of study groups (4 criteria)
› Comparability of study groups (1 criterion)
› Ascertainment of outcome of interest (3 criteria)

A star rating system was applied
› 9 stars total

Information extracted included:
›
›
›
›
Citation data, purpose, rationale, study design
Participant characteristics and exposure
Inclusion and exclusion criteria
Outcome measures, results, limitations

Original authors were contacted when
necessary

20 studies were included in descriptive
review

2 studies used the same data set

Used Review Manager Version 5.0

Odds ratio using the Mantel-Haenszel
method with a random effects model
of analysis

Examined for similarities in outcome
measure and study population

Sub-group analysis was completed for
studies that included only ELBW
population
(22)

20 articles selection (19 unique studies)

Study Design
› 11 were case controlled(1,5,6,7,8,11-16)
› 8 were cohort(2, 4,10,17-21)

Age of participants
› Ranged from 5 – 14 years

Sample Sizes
› 14 -1237

Study groups
› 5 studies examined gestational age(7,16,19,20,21)
› 14 studies examined birth weight(1,2,4-6,8,10-15,17,18)

Control groups
› Full term, NBW, both

Outcome measures
› MABC, 3-item MABC, non-standardized
MABC, TMI, BOTMP, PDMS, Touwen Exam,
MAP

16/19 data sets showed a statistically significant
difference in outcome measure scores of their
study population
(1,2, 5-8, 10-17,19,21)
› The studied population performed worse

9/12 data sets demonstrated significantly more
children classified as having a motor impairment if
born preterm and/or low birth weight
(5,6,10,13,17,19,21)

1/19 data sets reported a non-significant
difference in motor competency between
children born preterm and term
(20)

Goyen and Lui (2008)
› Prevalence of DCD was 42% in the preterm/ELBW
population versus 8% in control group (p = 0.0001)
› 30% of study group had severe DCD (defined as
scores < 5th percentile)

Holsti et al. (2002)
› 51% of the study group were classified as having
DCD (scores < 1 SD) versus 5% in control group
(p < 0.0001)

5 studies included

Examined the effect of VLBW (1,500g or less) on
motor impairment using the MABC

2 meta-analyses
(5,6,10,13,17)
(22)
1. Used the criteria of children scoring below the 5th
percentile
2. Used the criteria of children scoring below the 15th
percentile

Both analyses showed a significant increase
p <0.00001, p <0.0001) in the likelihood of motor
impairment in VLBW children

First systematic review of the literature
1.
Preterm/LBW children scored lower on
motor competency measures
Preterm/LBW children higher prevalence
of motor impairment
2.
3.
≤ 5th percentile on the MABC:
› VLBW children are 8.11 times more likely than
NBW controls to score below the 5th
percentile on this motor test
4.
≤ 15th percentile on the MABC:
› VLBW children are 11.30 times more likely
than NBW controls to score below the 15th
percentile on this motor test

Conference that defined the most
important factors of diagnosis,
assessment and intervention of DCD

Documented cut-off criteria
› 5th percentile of motor competency test

VLBW children are more likely to score
below the 15th percentile than the 5th
percentile on the MABC
Study
Number of Stars
Davis et al. (2007)
9 /9
Goyen & Lui (2009)
8 /9
Evensen et al. (2004)
8 /9
Burns et al. (2008)
7 /9
Powls et al. (1995)
7 /9

Forslund (1992) reported a nonsignificant difference in motor
competency
› Older gestational age (<35 weeks)
› Compensatory movements
› Ambidextrous

de Kieviet et al. (2009) demonstrated
motor impairment in very preterm and
VLBW children
(24)

We demonstrate a link between motor
impairments and the occurrence of DCD
in VLBW children

Preterm/VLBW children continue to
experience motor problems throughout
school years
(5, 2,13,19)

Motor problems increase when children
reach school age
(24)

Children withdraw from participation
with peers

Lack of consistency surrounding
appropriate cut-off criteria by which to
diagnose DCD
› Problem for children with minor motor
impairments

Need for awareness amongst parents,
teachers and health care practitioners
regarding DCD

5th and 15th percentile cut-off criteria on
the MABC can be used to identify DCD

Our review demonstrates:
› Importance of early motor skill assessment
› Need for early intervention strategies

Biases in the original reviewed articles
› Difficulty with blind assessments
› Lack of randomization selecting control
participants

NOQ Assessment Scale was used to
compensate for these biases

Classification of DCD
› DSM-IV classification established in 1994

Excluded non-English studies

Excluded gray literature and articles in
publication
1.
A relationship between preterm birth
and/or LBW and the development of
motor impairment exists
2.
Observational analysis demonstrates a
statistically significant decrease in motor
competency in preterm/LBW children
 Increase prevalence of motor impairment
3.
Meta-analysis shows that children born
preterm or VLBW are significantly more
likely to score below the 5th and 15th
percentile on the MABC
› Indicates motor impairment consistent with
DCD
› Leeds Consensus
(23)

Future research should include:
› Systematic review of the literature and a
meta-analysis which focus on articles that
use the DSM-IV criteria of DCD

Future Directions
› Need for early intervention strategies
› Need for consistent assessment protocols
and tools to identify DCD
 Assessment tools should be available to all
professionals working with children

The earlier at risk children can be
identified the higher the chances they
have at a successful intervention
› Literature shows a need for early intervention
strategies
› Many motor impairments are not evident
until school-aged years

Impact
› Showcase importance of early identification
of DCD
› Increase general awareness
› Improve long-term outcomes for this
population
Dr. Jill Zwicker
Marc Roig
Charlotte Beck
Dean Giustini
Dr. Darlene Reid
Dr. Elizabeth Dean
Thank you!
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Keller H, Ayub BV, Saigal S, Bar-Or O. Neuromotor ability in 5- to 7-year-old children with very
low or extremely low birthweight. Dev.Med.Child Neurol. 1998 Oct;40(10):661-666.
Holsti L, Grunau RV, Whitfield MF. Developmental coordination disorder in extremely low birth
weight children at nine years. J.Dev.Behav.Pediatr. 2002 Feb;23(1):9-15.
Zwicker JG, Harris SR.
Quality of Life of Formerly Preterm and Very Low Birth Weight Infants From Preschool Age to
Adulthood: A Systematic Review. Pediatr. 2008;121(2):366-376.
Hall A, McLeod A, Counsell C, Thomson L, Mutch L. School attainment, cognitive ability and
motor function in a total Scottish very-low-birthweight population at eight years: a
controlled study. Dev.Med.Child Neurol. 1995 Dec;37(12):1037-1050.
Goyen TA, Lui K. Developmental coordination disorder in "apparently normal" schoolchildren
born extremely preterm. Arch.Dis.Child. 2009 Apr;94(4):298-302.
Burns YR, Danks M, O'Callaghan M, Gray PH, Cooper D, Poulsen L, et al. Motor coordination
difficulties and physical fitness of extremely-low-birthweight children. Dev.Med.Child Neurol.
2009 02;51(2):136-142.
Lee SY, Chow CB, Ma PY, Ho YB, Shek CC. Gross motor skills of premature, very lowbirthweight Chinese children. Ann.Trop.Paediatr. 2004 Jun;24(2):179-183.
Leosdottir T, Egilson ST, Georgsdottir I. Performance on extremely low birthweight children at
5 years of age on the Miller Assessment for Preschoolers. Phys.Occup.Ther.Pediatr.
2005;25(4):59-72.
Henderson SE, Henderson L. Toward An Understanding of Developmental Coordination
Disorder: Terminological and Diagnostic Issues. Neural Plast. 2003;10(1-2):1-13.
Davis NM, Ford GW, Anderson PJ, Doyle LW. Developmental coordination disorder at 8 years
of age in a regional cohort of extremely-lowbirthweight or very preterm infants.
Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology 2007 05;49(5):325-330.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
Marlow N, Roberts BL, Cooke RW. Motor skills in extremely low birthweight children at the age of 6 years.
Arch.Dis.Child. 1989 Jun;64(6):839-847.
Marlow N, Roberts L, Cooke R. Outcome at 8 years for children with birth weights of 1250 g or less.
Arch.Dis.Child. 1993 Mar;68(3 Spec No):286-290
Powls A, Botting N, Cooke RW, Marlow N. Motor impairment in children 12 to 13 years old with a
birthweight of less than 1250 g. Arch.Dis.Child.Fetal Neonatal Ed. 1995 Sep;73(2):F62-6.
Taylor HG, Klein N, Minich NM, Hack M. Middle-school-age outcomes in children with very low
birthweight. Child Dev. 2000 Nov-Dec;71(6):1495-1511.
Whitfield MF, Grunau RV, Holsti L. Extremely premature (< or = 800 g) schoolchildren: multiple areas of
hidden disability. Arch.Dis.Child.Fetal Neonatal Ed. 1997 Sep;77(2):F85-90.
Marlow N, Hennessy EM, Bracewell MA, Wolke D. Motor and executive function at 6 years of age after
extremely preterm birth. Pediatrics 2007 10;120(4):793-804.
Evensen KA, Vik T, Helbostad J, Indredavik MS, Kulseng S, Brubakk AM. Motor skills in adolescents with low
birth weight. Arch.Dis.Child.Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2004 Sep;89(5):F451-5.
Roberts BL, Marlow N, Cooke RW. Motor problems among children of very low birthweight. British Journal
of Occupational Therapy 1989 03;52(3):97-99.
Arnaud C, Daubisse-Marliac L, White-Koning M, Pierrat V, Larroque B, Grandjean H, et al. Prevalence
and associated factors of minor neuromotor dysfunctions at age 5 years in prematurely born children:
the EPIPAGE Study. Arch.Pediatr.Adolesc.Med. 2007 11;161(11):1053-1061.
Forslund M. Growth and motor performance in preterm children at 8 years of age. Acta Paediatr. 1992
Oct;81(10):840-842.
21.
22.
23.
24.
Foulder-Hughes L, Cooke R. Do mainstream schoolchildren who were born preterm have motor
problems? BR J OCCUP THER 2003;66(1):9-16
The Cochrane Collaboration. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, Review
Manager 5.0. 2008;5.0.
Sugden D, Chambers M, Utley A, editors. Leeds Consensus Statement. Developmental Coordination
Disorder as a Specific Learning Disability; 2004-2005; Leeds, UK: The Economic Science Research
Council; 2006.
de Kieviet JF, Piek JP, Aarnoudse-Moens CS, Oosterlaan J.
Motor Development in Very Preterm and Very Low-Birth-Weight Children From Birth to Adolescence: A
Meta-analysis. JAMA 2009;302(20):2235-2242.
A.
B.
C.
D.
Performance in daily activities that requires motor
coordination is substantially below that expected, given the
person’s chronological age and measure of intelligence. This
may be manifested by marked delays in achieving motor
milestones (walking, crawling, and sitting), dropping things,
‘‘clumsiness,’’ poor performance in sports, or poor
handwriting.
The disturbance in Criterion A significantly interferes with
academic achievement or activities of daily living.
The disturbance is not due to a general medical condition
(e.g., cerebral palsy, hemiplegia, or muscular dystrophy) and
does not meet the criteria for a pervasive developmental
disorder (PDD).
If mental retardation is present, the motor difficulties are in
excess of those associated with it.
1. Infant, Premature/
9. very low birth weight.ti,ab.
17. clums*.ti,ab.
2. premature infant*.ti,ab.
10. extremely low birth weight
infant*.ti,ab.
18. inco?ordinat*.ti,ab.
3. prematurity.ti,ab.
11. 1 or 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 or 6 or
7 or 8 or 9 or 10
19. "perceptuo?motor
dysfunction".ti,ab.
4. Infant, Low Birth Weight/
12. Motor Skills Disorders/
20. "perceptual motor
difficult*".ti,ab.
5. low birth weight
infant*.ti,ab.
13. motor skill* disorder*.ti,ab.
21. "specific development*
disorder* of motor
function*".ti,ab.
6. low birth weight.ti,ab.
14. "developmental
co?ordination disorder".ti,ab.
22. dyspraxi*.ti,ab.
7. Infant, Very Low Birth
Weight/
15. DCD.ti,ab.
23. dysgraphi*.ti,ab.
8. very low birth weight
infant*.ti,ab.
16. "clumsy child
syndrotme".i,ab.
24. "development*
dyspraxi*".ti,ab.
25. "deficits in attention,
motor control, and
perception".ti,ab.
26. "psychomotor
disorder*".ti,ab.
27. "sensorimotor
difficult*".ti,ab.
28. "sensory integrat*
dysfunction*".ti,ab.
29. "sensory integrat*".ti,ab.
33. "minor neuro*
dysfunction*".ti,ab.
41. "motor skills".ti,ab.
34. "minimal brain
dysfunction*".ti,ab.
35. "development*
apra*".ti,ab.
36. "physical*
awkward*".ti,ab.
37. "motor impair*".ti,ab.
30. "nonverbal learn*
disabilit*".ti,ab.
38. "motor delay*".ti,ab.
31. "mov* disorder*".ti,ab.
39. "motor learn*
disabilit*".ti,ab.
40. Motor Skills/
42. Developmental
Disabilities/
43. "development*
disabilit*".ti,ab.
44. "development* delay
disorder*".ti,ab.
45. child development
disorder*.ti,ab.
46. 33 or 32 or 21 or 26 or 17
or 18 or 30 or 16 or 44 or 25 or
27 or 28 or 40 or 14 or 20 or 24
or 31 or 35 or 22 or 42 or 13 or
23 or 29 or 39 or 36 or 12 or 41
or 15 or 38 or 34 or 45 or 37 or
19 or 43
47. 11 and 46
32. "development* right
hemisphere syndrome".ti,ab.
NEWCASTLE - OTTAWA QUALITY ASSESSMENT SCALE
COHORT STUDIES
Note: A study can be awarded a maximum of one star for each numbered item within the
Selection and Outcome categories. A maximum of two stars can be given for Comparability
Selection
1) Representativeness of the exposed cohort
a) truly representative a school-aged child (5-18 years old) born prematurely (<37 weeks) or with
low birth weight (<2500 g) in the community *
b) somewhat representative of of a school-aged child (5-18 years old) born prematurely (<37
weeks) or with low birth weight (<2500 g) in the community *
c) selected group of users eg nurses
d) no description of the derivation of the cohort
2) Selection of the non exposed cohort
a) drawn from the same community as the exposed cohort *
b) drawn from a different source
c) no description of the derivation of the non exposed cohort
3) Ascertainment of exposure
a) secure record (eg birth record) *
b) structured interview *
c) written self report
d) no description
4) Demonstration that outcome of interest was not present at start of study
a) yes *
b) no
Comparability
1) Comparability of cohorts on the basis of the design or analysis
a) study controls for co-morbidities *
b) study controls for any additional factor: low IQ *
Outcome
1) Assessment of outcome
a) independent blind assessment *
b) record linkage *
c) self report
d) no description
2) Was follow-up long enough for outcomes to occur
a) yes (select an adequate follow up period for outcome of interest) *
b) No
3) Adequacy of follow up of cohorts
a) complete follow up - all subjects accounted for *
b) subjects lost to follow up unlikely to introduce bias - small number lost (> 20 % ) *
c) follow up rate < 80 % and no description of those lost
d) no statement
Study
Total Stars ( /9) Selection ( /4) Comparability(/2)
Outcome
(/3)
Arnaud et al
9
4
2
3
Davis et al
9
4
2
3
Evensen et al
8
3
2
3
Goyen & Lui
8
4
2
2
Holsti et al
8
4
2
2
Keller et al
8
4
1
3
Lee et al
8
4
2
2
Marlow et al
1989
Marlow et al
1993
Marlow et al
2007
8
4
2
2
8
4
2
2
8
4
1
3
Study
Total Stars ( /9) Selection ( /4) Comparability (/2) Outcome (/3)
Burns et al
7
3
1
3
Foulder-Hughes
& Cooke
7
4
1
2
Hall et al
7
3
2
2
Leosdottir et al
7
4
1
2
Powls et al
7
4
1
2
Roberts et al
7
4
1
2
Taylor et al
7
3
1
3
Whitfield et al
7
3
2
2
Study
Study
Experimental Group(s)
Control Group
Design
Motor
Outcome
N
Age Range or
N
Age Range or
Mean
Mean
(SD or range)
(SD or range)
VLBW & ELBW STUDY GROUPS
Burns et al.
Evensen et
Case-
54 ELBW
control
(<1000g)
Cohort
54 VLBW
al.
Hall et al.
12 y 6 mo (8 mo) 55 Term
12 y 5 mo (8 mo)
MABC
14.1 (0.3) y
14.2 (0.3) y
MABC
(<1500g)
Cohort
45 ELBW
83 NGA &
Term
8.8 (0.3) y
90 NBW
8.7 (0.4) y
MABCa
8.8 (7.3-11.6) y
18 Term
9.3 (9-10) y
BOTMP
(<1000g)
Holsti et al.
Cohort
73 ELBW
(<801g)
TABLE 1
Description of Studies continued
Study
Study
Design
Experimental Group(s)
N
Age Range or
Mean
(SD or range)
6.4 y, 6.7 y
Keller et
al.
CaseControl
14 ELBW
(500g999g), 20
VLBW
(1000g1499g)
Leosdottir et
al.
CaseControl
32 ELBW
(<1000g)
5.3 – 5.7 y
Marlow et al. Case1989
Control
53 ELBW
(<1251g)
Marlow et al. Case1993
Control
Powls et al.
CaseControl
Control Group
N
24 NBW
(>2500g)
55 NBW
Age Range or
Mean
(SD or range)
6.4 y
Motor
Outcome
Coordinati
on testb
5.3 – 5.6 y
MAP
Median (quartile) 53 NBW
73 mo (72-75)
73 mo (72-72.5)
TMI
51 ELBW
(<1251g)
96 (85-117) mo
59 NBW
(81-106) mo
TMI
47 VLBW
(<1250g)
12-13 y
60 NBW
12-13 y
MABC
TABLE 1
Description of Studies continued
Study
Study
Experimental Group(s)
Control Group
Design
Outcome
N
Roberts et al.
Cohort
Motor
53 ELBW
Age Range or
N
Age Range or
Mean
Mean
(SD or range)
(SD or range)
6y
53 Term
6y
TMI
11 (1.1) y
55 VLBW
11.1 (1.3) y;
BOTMP
(750-
11.2 (1.2) y
(<1251g)
Taylor et al.
Casecontrol
60 ELBW
(<750g)
1499g); 49
NBW
Whitfield et
al.
Casecontrol
90 ELBW
8.6 y
50 Term
9 (6.5-12.1) y
BOTMP
8 y 10 mo (5 mo)
MABC
(<801g)
VLBW/ELBW AND/OR PRETERM STUDY GROUPS
Davis et al.
Cohort
255 ELBW
(<1000g)
or <28 wk
8 y 8 mo (4 mo) 208 NBW
(>2.499kg)
TABLE 1
Description of Studies continued
Study
Study
Design
Experimental Group(s)
N
Age Range or
Mean
(SD or range)
Goyen & Lui
Casecontrol
8.8 (0.3) y
50 ELBW
(<1000g) or
<29wk
Lee et al.
Casecontrol
42 Preterm
(<37wk)
and VLBW
(<1500g)
71 (6.8) mo
Control Group
N
50 NBW &
Term
69 NBW
Motor
Outcome
Age Range or
Mean
(SD or range)
8.8 (0.4) y
MABC
72 (6.5) mo
PDMS
PRETERM STUDY GROUP
Arnaud et al.
TABLE 1
Cohort
1237 Very
Preterm
(<33 wk)
5.1 (0.2) y
195
Preterm
(33-34
wks)
287 Term
8.8 (0.4) y
Touwen
Examc
Description of Studies continued
Study
Study
Design
Experimental Group(s)
N
Forslund
Cohort
FoulderHughes &
Cooke
Cohort
Marlow et al.
2007
Casecontrol
Age Range or
Mean
(SD or range)
41 Preterm 8.4 y
(<35 wk)
280
Preterm
(<32 wk)
180 very
preterm
(<26 wk)
Control Group
N
Motor
Outcome
Age Range or
Mean
(SD or range)
8.2 y
TMI
89.8 (82-101) mo 210 Term
89.9 (72-107) mo
MABC
158 Term
6.17 (5.08-7.18) y
MABCd
6.33 (5.17-7.25)
y
24 NGA &
Term