 |
|
A Parable Wrapped in an Enigma
Population-Based Assessments of Outcomes Among High-Risk Neonates Are Even Less Achievable in the Age of Clinical Informatics
Russell S. Kirby, PhD, MS
Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 1999;153:789-792.
|
|
| Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings. |
|
|
|
A staple of the biomedical research literature in perinatal care is the article on sequelae of high-risk infants. These articles variously examine growth, cognitive, neurodevelopmental, behavioral, health, and other outcomes of low-birth-weight, preterm, or intrauterine growth–restricted neonates who survived the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) or neonatal period. More recently, a new genre of articles has emerged that provides meta-analytic or systematic reviews of the results of these articles on sequelae of high-risk infants.1-5 A review of the purposes, analytic strategies, conclusions, and implications of these studies seems worthwhile. In this commentary, I focus especially on the comments and suggestions of other researchers who have considered the methodological complexities and study designs required for scientifically valid, clinically useful studies.6-10
In comparing the findings and methodologies of several recent synthetic studies, I was struck not only by the similarities in meta-analytic methodologies and statistical findings, but . . . [Full Text of this Article] LITERATURE ON SEQUELAE OF HIGH-RISK INFANTS
FUNDING AND ACCESS TO INFORMATION
From the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Milwaukee Clinical Campus, University of Wisconsin-Madison Medical School.
THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES
Follow-up Care of High-Risk Infants
Pediatrics 2004;114:1377-1397.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
|
