Article

Neurodevelopment is a key outcome for many childhood trials and
observational studies. Clinically important decisions may rest on finding
relatively small differences in neurodevelopment between groups receiving complex
and costly interventions.
Our purpose was to determine whether studies which
measure neurodevelopment report the numbers, training, and auditing of assessors
and, for multiple assessor studies, whether the results were adjusted and if so
by which method ? METHOD: Electronic searches were conducted using Medline,
Embase, Cinahl, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane Library. A study was eligible if it
reported neurodevelopmental outcome in children resident in the UK, less than or
equal to 18 years and was published between 2000 and 2015. Trials and
observational studies were included. RESULTS: Three hundred and seven full papers
were reviewed: 52% of papers did not report the number of assessors used; 21%
used a single assessor; and 27% used multiple assessors. Thirty-five per cent
mentioned that assessors were trained in the use of the neurodevelopmental tool ;
13% of assessors were audited; and only 1% of studies adjusted statistically for
the number of assessors. INTERPRETATION: At the very least, the quality of
reporting the use of assessors in these research publications is poor, while at
worst, the variability of assessors may mask the true relationship between an
intervention/observation and neurodevelopmental outcome.
CI - (c) 2015 Mac Keith Press.

Langue : ANGLAIS