Gálvez-Martínez RE, Iglesias-Leboreiro J, Bernárdez-Zapata I, Rendón-Macías ME, García-Sosa A , Lases-Rufeil S

Language: Spanish
References: 12
Page: 250-254
PDF size: 223.45 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Background: Preterm infants have a high risk for abnormal psychomotor development, even without severe hypoxic damage. Objective: To determine the accuracy in the detection of abnormal psychomotor development based on the assessment of the pediatrician and the parents, compared to an evaluation done through the standardized instrument (ASQ) in children with a history of prematurity. Methods: We evaluated 40 infants under six months of age with the Ages & Stages Questionnaire to establish a risk for abnormal psychomotor development. No patient had a history of hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy at birth. We asked the pediatricians and the infant’s parents their own appreciation of the child’s development and we determined the validity of this appreciation. Results: With the Ages & Stages Questionnaire, 27 (67.5%) infants were at risk of abnormal development; of these, only eight (sensibility = 29.6%) were identified by pediatricians and three by his/her parents (sensibility = 11.1%). No infant with normal punctuation in the questionnaire was considered as having an abnormal development by pediatricians or parents (specificity 100%). The pediatrician-parent concordance was regular (Kappa 0.49). There was a low proportion of infants under early stimulation therapy with scores at risk (36.4% versus 79.3%, p = 0.02). Conclusions: The appreciation of pediatricians and parents of normality in the psychomotor development is not enough to detect a risk for future retardation in patients with a history of prematurity. We suggest that this evaluation should always be performed with a standardized instrument.

REFERENCES

1. Minguet R, Cruz PR, Ruiz RA, Hernández M. Incidencia de nacimientos pretérmino en el IMSS (2007-2012). Ginecol Obs Mex. 2014; 82: 465-471.

2. Pérez-Zamudio R, López-Terrones CR, Rodríguez-Barboza A. Morbilidad y mortalidad del recién nacido prematuro en el Hospital General de Irapuato. Bol Med Hosp Inft Mex. 2013; 70 (4): 299-303.

3. Cloherty JP, Eichenwald EC, Stark AR, Chacón-Castillo M, Ballesteros-Massó R, Fontán-Fontán F et al. Manual de neonatología. Barcelona: Lippincott Williams Wilkins; 2009.

4. Rellan-Rodríguez S, Garcia de Ribera C, Aragón-Garcia MP. El recién nacido prematuro. Asociación Española de Pediatría; 2008.

5. Schapira I, Roy E, Coritgiani M, Aspres N, Benítez A, Galindo A et al. Estudio prospectivo de recién nacidos prematuros hasta los dos años. Evaluación de un método de medición del neurodesarrollo. Rev Hosp Matern Infant Ramon Sardá. 1998; 17 (2): 52-58.

6. Romo B, Liendo S, Vargas G, Rizzoli A, Buenrostro G. Pruebas de tamizaje de neurodesarrollo global para niños menores de 5 años validadas en Estados Unidos y Latinoamérica: revisión sistemática y análisis comparativo. Bol Med Hosp Infant Mex. 2012; 69 (6): 450-462.

7. Schonhaut L, Armijo I. Aplicabilidad del Ages & Stages Questionnaire para el tamizaje del desarrollo psicomotor. Rev Chil Pediatría. 2014; 85 (1): 12-21.

8. Rizzoli A, Schnaas L, Liendo S, Buenrostro G, Romo B, Carreon J et al. Validación de un instrumento para la detección oportuna de problemas de desarrollo en menores de cinco años en México. Bol Med Hosp Infant Mex. 2013; 70 (3): 195-208.

9. Marks KP, LaRosa AC. Understanding developmental-behavioral screening measures. Pediatr Rev. 2012; 33 (10): 448-458.

10. Drotar D, Stancin T, Dworkin PH, Sices L, Wood S. Selecting developmental surveillance and screening tools. Pediatr Rev. 2008; 29 (10): e52-e58.

11. Schonhaut L, Armijo I, Schonstedt M, Alvarez J, Cordero M. Validity of the Ages & Stages Questionnaires in term and preterm infants. Pediatrics. 2013; 131 (5): e1468-e1474.

12. Squires J, Bricker D, Twombly E. Ages & Stages Questionnaires. In Spanish. A parent-completed Child Monitoring System. 3rd ed. Baltimore, Maryland; 2009. pp. 182-257.