Neurodevelopmental outcome of extremely low birth weight infants at 24 months corrected age: a comparison between Griffiths and Bayley Scales. Issue 1 (December 2015)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Picciolini, Odoardo; Squarza, Chiara; Fontana, Camilla; Giannì, Maria; Cortinovis, Ivan; Gangi, Silvana; Gardon, Laura; Presezzi, Gisella; Fumagalli, Monica; Mosca, Fabio
• Is Part Of: BMC pediatrics. Volume 15:Issue 1(2015)
• Page Start: 1
• Page End: 9
• Publication Date: 2015-12
• Subjects: Bayley-II -- Bayley-III -- Griffiths -- Developmental assessment -- Extremely low birth weight infants; Pediatrics -- Periodicals; 618.920005
• DOI: 10.1186/s12887-015-0457-x
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1471-2431

Abstract

Abstract Background The availability of accurate assessment tools for the early detection of infants at risk for adverse neurodevelopmental outcomes is a major issue. The purpose of this study is to compare the outcomes of the Bayley Scales (Bayley-II vs Bayley-III) in a cohort of extremely low birth weight infants at 24 months corrected age, to define which edition shows the highest agreement with the Griffiths Mental Development Scales Revised. Methods We performed a single-centre cohort study. We prospectively enrolled infants with a birth weight of 401–1000 g and/or gestational age < 28 weeks. Exclusion criteria were the presence of neurosensory disabilities and/or genetic abnormalities. Infants underwent neurodevelopmental evaluation at 24 months corrected age using the Griffiths and either the Bayley-II (birth years 2003–2006) or the Bayley-III (birth years 2007–2010). Results A total of 194 infants were enrolled. Concordance was excellent between the Griffiths and the Bayley-III composite scores for both cognitive language and motor abilities (weightedK = 0.80 and 0.81, respectively) but poorer for the Bayley-II (weightedK = 0.63 and 0.50, respectively). The Youden's Index revealed higher values for the Bayley-III than for the Bayley-II (75.9 vs 69.6 %). Compared with the Griffiths, the Bayley-III found 3 % fewer infants as being severely impaired in cognitive-language abilities and 7.8 % fewer infants as being mildly impaired in motor skills while the Bayley-II showed, compared with the Griffiths, higher rates of severely impaired children both for cognitive-language and motor abilities (14.1 and 15.3 % more infants respectively). Discussion Our study suggests that the Bayley-III, although having a higher agreement with the Griffiths compared to the Bayley-II, slightly tends to underestimate neurodevelopmental impairment compared with the Griffiths, whereas the Bayley-II tends to overestimate it. Conclusions On the basis of these findings, we recommend the use of multiple measures to assess neurodevelopmental outcomes of extremely low birth weight infants at 24 months.