Outcome of very preterm birth: Children reviewed with ease at 2 years differ from those followed up with difficulty

Archives of Disease in Childhood: Fetal and Neonatal Edition

Volumn 79, Issue 2, 1998, Pages

  Tin, Win ^a   Fritz, Susan ^a   Wariyar, Unni ^a   Hey, Edmund ^a  

^a JAMES COOK UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Disability; Preterm; Prevalence studies

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CHILD; CONTROLLED STUDY; DISABILITY; FOLLOW UP; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; NEWBORN; NEWBORN CARE; PARENTAL BEHAVIOR; PREMATURITY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; UNITED KINGDOM;

EID: 0031709508     PISSN: 13592998     EISSN: 14682052     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/fn.79.2.F83     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. Mutch LMM, Johnson MA, Morley R. Follow up studies: design, organisation and analysis. Arch Dis Child I989;64:1394-402.
2. \Variyar UK, Richmond S, Hey E. Pregnancy outcome at 24-31 weeks gestation: neonatal survivors. Arch Dis Child 1989;64:678-86.
3. Tin W. The changing prognosis for babies born more than eight weeks early over two decades. Proceedings of the British Paediatric Association Annual Meeting 1994;66:24.
4. Northern Neonatal Network. Requirements for neonatal cots. Arch Dis Child 1993;68:544-9.
5. Griffiths R. The abilities of young children. London: Child Development Research Centre, 1970.
6. Johnson A. Disability and perinatal care. Pediatrics 1995;95:272-4.
7. NNN1 Trial Group. Randomised trial of prophylactic early fresh-frozen plasma or gelatin or glucose in preterm babies: outcome at 2 years. Lancet 1996;348:229-32.
8. Elliot CD. British Ability Scales. Windsor: NFER-Nelson Publishing Company, 1983.
9. \Variyar UK, Richmond S. Morbidity and preterm delivery -importance of 100% follow-up. Lancet 1989;i:387-8.
10. Fooks J, Fritz S, Tin W, et al. A comparison of two methods of neonatal follow-up in a trial of prophylactic volume expansion in preterm babies. Paediatr Pcrinat Epidemiol 1998;12:199-216.
11. Ayhvard GP, Hatcher RP, Stripp B, Gustafson NF, Leavitt LA.AVho goes and who stays : subject loss in a multicentre, longitudinal follow-up study. J Dca Bekav Pediatr 1985;6:3-8.
12. \Volke D, Shone B, Ohrt B, Reigal K. Follow-up of preterm children : important to document dropouts. Lancet 1995;345:447.
13. von Bernuth H, von Harnack G-A, Vogelsang U. Organisatorische problème bei der betreuung von risikokindern. Mschr Kinderheilk 1970;118:570-1.
14. Campbell MK, Halinda E, Carlylc MJ, Fox AM, Turner LA, Chance G\V. Factors predictive of follow-up attendance and developmental outcome in a regional cohort of very low birthweight infants. Am J Epidemiol 1993;138:704-13.
15. Tyson JE, Lasky RE, Rosenfeld CR, Dowling S, Grant N. An analysis of potential biases in the loss of indigent infants to follow up. Early Hum Dev 1988;16:13-25.
16. Cadett AT, Thompson RJ, Johndrow DA, Boshkofl MR. Risk status for dropping out of developmental followup for very low birth weight infants. Public Health Rep 1993;108:589-94.
17. Cox A, Rutter M, Yule B, Quinten D. Bias resulting from missing information : some epidemiological findings. Br J Prov Soc Med 1977;31:131-6.
18. Britton A, Murray D, Bulstrode C, McPherson K, Denham R. Loss to follow-up: does it matter? Lancet 1995;345: 1511-2.
19. Halliday HJ, Lumley J, Sheffield LJ, Robinson HP, Renou P, Carlin JB. Importance of complete follow-up of spontaneous fetal loss after amniocentesis and chorion villus sampling. Lancet 1992;340:886-90.
20. Hart JT. Response rates in South Vi'ales 1950-1996: changing requirements for mass participation in human research. In: Maynard A, Chalmers I, eds. Non-random reflections on health service research : on the 25th anniversary of Archie Cochrane's effectiveness and efficiency. London: BMJ Publishing Group, 1997.
21. Escobar GL, Littenberg B, Petitti DB. Outcome among surviving very low birthweight infants : a meta-analysis. Arch Dû CA/M 1991;66:204-11.