"Medicine, Faculty of"@en . "Physical Therapy, Department of"@en . "DSpace"@en . "Berube, Michelle"@en . "Edwards, Jessica"@en . "Erlandson, Kelcey"@en . "Haug, Stephanie"@en . "Johnstone, Heather"@en . "Meagher, Meaghan"@en . "Sarkodee-Adoo, Shirley"@en . "2016-11-22T15:15:29"@en . "2010-07"@en . "MPT Systematic Reviews and Research Projects."@en . "https://circle.library.ubc.ca/rest/handle/2429/31876?expand=metadata"@en . "Michelle Berube, Jessica Edwards, Kelcey Erlandson, Stephanie Haug, Heather Johnstone, Meghan Meagher, Shirley Sarkodee-AdooSupervisor: Jill Zwicker\u00C2\u009E Prenatal care, obstetrics, and neonatal medicine care has improved significantly in the past few decades(1)\u00C2\u009E Increased survival rates among infants born preterm (<37 weeks) and low birth weight (LBW; <2,500g)(1)\u00C2\u009E These children are more likely to experience difficulties with growth, learning, behavior and motor development(2,3,4)\u00C2\u009E Deficits include coordination, balance,gross and fine motor control and visomotor integration(5-8)\u00C2\u009E Confusing terminology(9) \u00E2\u0080\u00BA \u00E2\u0080\u0098clumsy child syndrome\u00E2\u0080\u0099, \u00E2\u0080\u0098developmental dyspraxia\u00E2\u0080\u0099 and \u00E2\u0080\u0098perceptulmotor dysfunction\u00E2\u0080\u0099\u00C2\u009E Developmental Coordination Disorder (DCD) was defined in 1994 by the DSM IV\u00C2\u009E An impairment of motor performance sufficient to produce functional performance deficits not explicable by the child\u00E2\u0080\u0099s age or intellect, or by other diagnosable neurological or psychiatric disorder(10)o Difficulties with handwriting, typing, ball skills, skipping, hopping, and a variety of other skills(10)o Potential long term implications(6,10)o Lack of evidence that shows a relationship between LBW/preterm birth with DCDWhat is the relationship between preterm birth and/or low birth weight, and the occurrence of Developmental Coordination Disorder in school age children?\u00C2\u009E MEDLINE (1950\u00E2\u0080\u0093June 2010)\u00C2\u009E EMBASE (1980\u00E2\u0080\u0093June 2010)\u00C2\u009E CINAHL (1982\u00E2\u0080\u0093June 2010) \u00C2\u009E PsycINFO (1975\u00E2\u0080\u0093June 2010) \u00C2\u009E Educational Resource Information Center (ERIC) (1969\u00E2\u0080\u0093June 2010) \u00C2\u009E PEDro (1929\u00E2\u0080\u0093June 2010) \u00C2\u009E Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (1998\u00E2\u0080\u0093June 2010) \u00C2\u009E Final searches completed June 30, 2010Exposure OutcomeInfant, Premature Motor Skills Disorderspremature infant Clumsy child Syndromeprematurity DCDInfant, Low Birth Weight Developmental Coordination disorderlow birth weight infant Motor ImpairmentInfant, Very Low Birth Weight Motor Skill Disordervery low birth weight Developmental disabilityextremely low birth weight infant And 33 additional keywords!1. Study population was school-age children (age 5-18 years)2. Study included children exposed to preterm birth (<37weeks) and/or low birth weight (<2,500g) 3. Focus of the study was on motor coordination impairments1. No comparison group2. Included children diagnosed with co-morbidities other than ADD or ADHD 3. Did not include a standardized measure of motor impairment4. Did not have separate data for school-aged children 5. Focused on children small for gestational age6. Focused on medical intervention7. Qualitative in nature8. Not published in EnglishCitations identified through electronic database search (CINAHL, Chochrane, Embase, ERIC, Medline, PEDro, PsycINFO)(n = 2527)Citations excluded based on inclusion and exclusion criteria (n = 1855)Citations Abstracts put forward for review(n = 268)Full text articles assessed for eligibility(n = 82)Studies included in qualitative synthesis(n = 20)Studies included in meta-analysis(n = 5)Abstracts excluded based on inclusion and exclusion criteria (n = 186)Studies excluded after full text review (n = 62)Not relevant design n = 1No comparison group = 15Comparison group not fully explained n = 5No standardized measure of motor impairment and/or no separate data for school aged children n = 41Citations put forward for review after duplicates removed (n = 2123)Citations identified through electronic database search (CINAHL, Chochrane, Embase, ERIC, Medline, PEDro, PsycINFO)(n = 2527)Citations excluded based on inclusion and exclusion criteria (n = 1855)Citations Abstracts put forward for review(n = 268)Full text articles assessed for eligibility(n = 82)Studies included in qualitative synthesis(n = 20)Studies included in meta-analysis(n = 5)Abstracts excluded based on inclusion and exclusion criteria (n = 186)Studies excluded after full text review (n = 62)Not relevant design n = 1No comparison group = 15Comparison group not fully explained n = 5No standardized measure of motor impairment and/or no separate data for school aged children n = 41Citations put forward for review after duplicates removed (n = 2123)Citations identified through electronic database search (CINAHL, Chochrane, Embase, ERIC, Medline, PEDro, PsycINFO)(n = 2527)Citations excluded based on inclusion and exclusion criteria (n = 1855)Citations Abstracts put forward for review(n = 268)Full text articles assessed for eligibility(n = 82)Studies included in qualitative synthesis(n = 20)Studies included in meta-analysis(n = 5)Abstracts excluded based on inclusion and exclusion criteria (n = 186)Studies excluded after full text review (n = 62)Not relevant design n = 1No comparison group = 15Comparison group not fully explained n = 5No standardized measure of motor impairment and/or no separate data for school aged children n = 41Citations put forward for review after duplicates removed (n = 2123)Citations identified through electronic database search (CINAHL, Chochrane, Embase, ERIC, Medline, PEDro, PsycINFO)(n = 2527)Citations excluded based on inclusion and exclusion criteria (n = 1855)Citations Abstracts put forward for review(n = 268)Full text articles assessed for eligibility(n = 82)Studies included in qualitative synthesis(n = 20)Studies included in meta-analysis(n = 5)Abstracts excluded based on inclusion and exclusion criteria (n = 186)Studies excluded after full text review (n = 62)Not relevant design n = 1No comparison group = 15Comparison group not fully explained n = 5No standardized measure of motor impairment and/or no separate data for school aged children n = 41Citations put forward for review after duplicates removed (n = 2123)Citations identified through electronic database search (CINAHL, Chochrane, Embase, ERIC, Medline, PEDro, PsycINFO)(n = 2527)Citations excluded based on inclusion and exclusion criteria (n = 1855)Citations Abstracts put forward for review(n = 268)Full text articles assessed for eligibility(n = 82)Studies included in qualitative synthesis(n = 20)Studies included in meta-analysis(n = 5)Abstracts excluded based on inclusion and exclusion criteria (n = 186)Studies excluded after full text review (n = 62)Not relevant design n = 1No comparison group = 15Comparison group not fully explained n = 5No standardized measure of motor impairment and/or no separate data for school aged children n = 41Citations put forward for review after duplicates removed (n = 2123)\u00C2\u009E Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale\u00E2\u0080\u00BA Designed for non-randomized studies\u00C2\u009E Study quality was based on 9 criteria within 3 domains\u00E2\u0080\u00BA Selection of study groups (4 criteria)\u00E2\u0080\u00BA Comparability of study groups (1 criterion)\u00E2\u0080\u00BA Ascertainment of outcome of interest (3 criteria)\u00C2\u009E A star rating system was applied\u00E2\u0080\u00BA 9 stars total\u00C2\u009E Information extracted included: \u00E2\u0080\u00BA Citation data, purpose, rationale, study design\u00E2\u0080\u00BA Participant characteristics and exposure\u00E2\u0080\u00BA Inclusion and exclusion criteria\u00E2\u0080\u00BA Outcome measures, results, limitations\u00C2\u009E Original authors were contacted when necessary\u00C2\u009E 20 studies were included in descriptive review\u00C2\u009E 2 studies used the same data set\u00C2\u009E Used Review Manager Version 5.0 (22)\u00C2\u009E Odds ratio using the Mantel-Haenszel method with a random effects model of analysis\u00C2\u009E Examined for similarities in outcome measure and study population\u00C2\u009E Sub-group analysis was completed for studies that included only ELBW population\u00C2\u009E 20 articles selection (19 unique studies)\u00C2\u009E Study Design\u00E2\u0080\u00BA 11 were case controlled(1,5,6,7,8,11-16) \u00E2\u0080\u00BA 8 were cohort(2, 4,10,17-21)\u00C2\u009E Age of participants\u00E2\u0080\u00BA Ranged from 5 \u00E2\u0080\u0093 14 years\u00C2\u009E Sample Sizes\u00E2\u0080\u00BA 14 -1237\u00C2\u009E Study groups\u00E2\u0080\u00BA 5 studies examined gestational age(7,16,19,20,21)\u00E2\u0080\u00BA 14 studies examined birth weight(1,2,4-6,8,10-15,17,18)\u00C2\u009E Control groups\u00E2\u0080\u00BA Full term, NBW, both\u00C2\u009E Outcome measures\u00E2\u0080\u00BA MABC, 3-item MABC, non-standardized MABC, TMI, BOTMP, PDMS, Touwen Exam, MAP\u00C2\u009E 16/19 data sets showed a statistically significant difference in outcome measure scores of their study population(1,2, 5-8, 10-17,19,21)\u00E2\u0080\u00BA The studied population performed worse\u00C2\u009E 9/12 data sets demonstrated significantly more children classified as having a motor impairment if born preterm and/or low birth weight(5,6,10,13,17,19,21)\u00C2\u009E 1/19 data sets reported a non-significant difference in motor competency between children born preterm and term(20)\u00C2\u009E Goyen and Lui (2008)\u00E2\u0080\u00BA Prevalence of DCD was 42% in the preterm/ELBW population versus 8% in control group (p = 0.0001) \u00E2\u0080\u00BA 30% of study group had severe DCD (defined as scores < 5th percentile)\u00C2\u009E Holsti et al. (2002) \u00E2\u0080\u00BA 51% of the study group were classified as having DCD (scores < 1 SD) versus 5% in control group (p < 0.0001)\u00C2\u009E 5 studies included(5,6,10,13,17)\u00C2\u009E Examined the effect of VLBW (1,500g or less) on motor impairment using the MABC\u00C2\u009E 2 meta-analyses(22)1. Used the criteria of children scoring below the 5thpercentile2. Used the criteria of children scoring below the 15thpercentile\u00C2\u009E Both analyses showed a significant increase p <0.00001, p <0.0001) in the likelihood of motor impairment in VLBW children\u00C2\u009E First systematic review of the literature1. Preterm/LBW children scored lower on motor competency measures2. Preterm/LBW children higher prevalence of motor impairment3. \u00E2\u0089\u00A4 5th percentile on the MABC:\u00E2\u0080\u00BA VLBW children are 8.11 times more likely than NBW controls to score below the 5thpercentile on this motor test4. \u00E2\u0089\u00A4 15th percentile on the MABC:\u00E2\u0080\u00BA VLBW children are 11.30 times more likely than NBW controls to score below the 15thpercentile on this motor test\u00C2\u009E Conference that defined the most important factors of diagnosis, assessment and intervention of DCD\u00C2\u009E Documented cut-off criteria\u00E2\u0080\u00BA 5th percentile of motor competency test\u00C2\u009E VLBW children are more likely to score below the 15th percentile than the 5thpercentile on the MABCStudy Number of StarsDavis et al. (2007) 9 /9Goyen & Lui (2009) 8 /9Evensen et al. (2004) 8 /9Burns et al. (2008) 7 /9Powls et al. (1995) 7 /9\u00C2\u009E Forslund (1992) reported a non-significant difference in motor competency\u00E2\u0080\u00BA Older gestational age (<35 weeks)\u00E2\u0080\u00BA Compensatory movements\u00E2\u0080\u00BA Ambidextrous\u00C2\u009E de Kieviet et al. (2009) demonstrated motor impairment in very preterm and VLBW children(24)\u00C2\u009E We demonstrate a link between motor impairments and the occurrence of DCD in VLBW children\u00C2\u009E Preterm/VLBW children continue to experience motor problems throughout school years(5, 2,13,19)\u00C2\u009E Motor problems increase when children reach school age(24)\u00C2\u009E Children withdraw from participation with peers\u00C2\u009E Lack of consistency surrounding appropriate cut-off criteria by which to diagnose DCD\u00E2\u0080\u00BA Problem for children with minor motor impairments \u00C2\u009E Need for awareness amongst parents, teachers and health care practitioners regarding DCD\u00C2\u009E 5th and 15th percentile cut-off criteria on the MABC can be used to identify DCD\u00C2\u009E Our review demonstrates:\u00E2\u0080\u00BA Importance of early motor skill assessment \u00E2\u0080\u00BA Need for early intervention strategies\u00C2\u009E Biases in the original reviewed articles\u00E2\u0080\u00BA Difficulty with blind assessments\u00E2\u0080\u00BA Lack of randomization selecting control participants\u00C2\u009E NOQ Assessment Scale was used to compensate for these biases\u00C2\u009E Classification of DCD\u00E2\u0080\u00BA DSM-IV classification established in 1994\u00C2\u009E Excluded non-English studies\u00C2\u009E Excluded gray literature and articles in publication1. A relationship between preterm birth and/or LBW and the development of motor impairment exists2. Observational analysis demonstrates a statistically significant decrease in motor competency in preterm/LBW children\u00C3\u0098 Increase prevalence of motor impairment3. Meta-analysis shows that children born preterm or VLBW are significantly more likely to score below the 5th and 15thpercentile on the MABC\u00E2\u0080\u00BA Indicates motor impairment consistent with DCD\u00E2\u0080\u00BA Leeds Consensus(23)\u00C2\u009E Future research should include:\u00E2\u0080\u00BA Systematic review of the literature and a meta-analysis which focus on articles that use the DSM-IV criteria of DCD\u00C2\u009E Future Directions\u00E2\u0080\u00BA Need for early intervention strategies\u00E2\u0080\u00BA Need for consistent assessment protocols and tools to identify DCD\u00C2\u0096 Assessment tools should be available to all professionals working with children\u00C2\u009E The earlier at risk children can be identified the higher the chances they have at a successful intervention\u00E2\u0080\u00BA Literature shows a need for early intervention strategies\u00E2\u0080\u00BA Many motor impairments are not evident until school-aged years\u00C2\u009E Impact\u00E2\u0080\u00BA Showcase importance of early identification of DCD\u00E2\u0080\u00BA Increase general awareness\u00E2\u0080\u00BA Improve long-term outcomes for this populationDr. Jill ZwickerMarc RoigCharlotte BeckDean GiustiniDr. Darlene ReidDr. Elizabeth DeanThank you!1. Keller H, Ayub BV, Saigal S, Bar-Or O. Neuromotor ability in 5- to 7-year-old children with very low or extremely low birthweight. Dev.Med.Child Neurol. 1998 Oct;40(10):661-666.2. Holsti L, Grunau RV, Whitfield MF. Developmental coordination disorder in extremely low birth weight children at nine years. J.Dev.Behav.Pediatr. 2002 Feb;23(1):9-15. 3. Zwicker JG, Harris SR. Quality of Life of Formerly Preterm and Very Low Birth Weight Infants From Preschool Age to Adulthood: A Systematic Review. Pediatr. 2008;121(2):366-376. 4. Hall A, McLeod A, Counsell C, Thomson L, Mutch L. School attainment, cognitive ability and motor function in a total Scottish very-low-birthweight population at eight years: a controlled study. Dev.Med.Child Neurol. 1995 Dec;37(12):1037-1050.5. Goyen TA, Lui K. Developmental coordination disorder in \"apparently normal\" schoolchildren born extremely preterm. Arch.Dis.Child. 2009 Apr;94(4):298-302.6. Burns YR, Danks M, O'Callaghan M, Gray PH, Cooper D, Poulsen L, et al. Motor coordination difficulties and physical fitness of extremely-low-birthweight children. Dev.Med.Child Neurol. 2009 02;51(2):136-142. 7. Lee SY, Chow CB, Ma PY, Ho YB, Shek CC. Gross motor skills of premature, very low-birthweight Chinese children. Ann.Trop.Paediatr. 2004 Jun;24(2):179-183. 8. Leosdottir T, Egilson ST, Georgsdottir I. Performance on extremely low birthweight children at 5 years of age on the Miller Assessment for Preschoolers. Phys.Occup.Ther.Pediatr. 2005;25(4):59-72. 9. Henderson SE, Henderson L. Toward An Understanding of Developmental Coordination Disorder: Terminological and Diagnostic Issues. Neural Plast. 2003;10(1-2):1-13.10. Davis NM, Ford GW, Anderson PJ, Doyle LW. Developmental coordination disorder at 8 years of age in a regional cohort of extremely-lowbirthweight or very preterm infants. Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology 2007 05;49(5):325-330.11. Marlow N, Roberts BL, Cooke RW. Motor skills in extremely low birthweight children at the age of 6 years. Arch.Dis.Child. 1989 Jun;64(6):839-847.12. Marlow N, Roberts L, Cooke R. Outcome at 8 years for children with birth weights of 1250 g or less. Arch.Dis.Child. 1993 Mar;68(3 Spec No):286-29013. Powls A, Botting N, Cooke RW, Marlow N. Motor impairment in children 12 to 13 years old with a birthweight of less than 1250 g. Arch.Dis.Child.Fetal Neonatal Ed. 1995 Sep;73(2):F62-6.14. Taylor HG, Klein N, Minich NM, Hack M. Middle-school-age outcomes in children with very low birthweight. Child Dev. 2000 Nov-Dec;71(6):1495-1511.15. Whitfield MF, Grunau RV, Holsti L. Extremely premature (< or = 800 g) schoolchildren: multiple areas of hidden disability. Arch.Dis.Child.Fetal Neonatal Ed. 1997 Sep;77(2):F85-90.16. Marlow N, Hennessy EM, Bracewell MA, Wolke D. Motor and executive function at 6 years of age after extremely preterm birth. Pediatrics 2007 10;120(4):793-804.17. Evensen KA, Vik T, Helbostad J, Indredavik MS, Kulseng S, Brubakk AM. Motor skills in adolescents with low birth weight. Arch.Dis.Child.Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2004 Sep;89(5):F451-5. 18. Roberts BL, Marlow N, Cooke RW. Motor problems among children of very low birthweight. British Journal of Occupational Therapy 1989 03;52(3):97-99. 19. Arnaud C, Daubisse-Marliac L, White-Koning M, Pierrat V, Larroque B, Grandjean H, et al. Prevalence and associated factors of minor neuromotor dysfunctions at age 5 years in prematurely born children: the EPIPAGE Study. Arch.Pediatr.Adolesc.Med. 2007 11;161(11):1053-1061.20. Forslund M. Growth and motor performance in preterm children at 8 years of age. Acta Paediatr. 1992 Oct;81(10):840-842.21. Foulder-Hughes L, Cooke R. Do mainstream schoolchildren who were born preterm have motor problems? BR J OCCUP THER 2003;66(1):9-1622. The Cochrane Collaboration. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, Review Manager 5.0. 2008;5.0.23. Sugden D, Chambers M, Utley A, editors. Leeds Consensus Statement. Developmental Coordination Disorder as a Specific Learning Disability; 2004-2005; Leeds, UK: The Economic Science Research Council; 2006.24. de Kieviet JF, Piek JP, Aarnoudse-Moens CS, Oosterlaan J. Motor Development in Very Preterm and Very Low-Birth-Weight Children From Birth to Adolescence: A Meta-analysis. JAMA 2009;302(20):2235-2242. A. Performance in daily activities that requires motor coordination is substantially below that expected, given the person\u00E2\u0080\u0099s chronological age and measure of intelligence. This may be manifested by marked delays in achieving motor milestones (walking, crawling, and sitting), dropping things, \u00E2\u0080\u0098\u00E2\u0080\u0098clumsiness,\u00E2\u0080\u0099\u00E2\u0080\u0099 poor performance in sports, or poor handwriting.B. The disturbance in Criterion A significantly interferes with academic achievement or activities of daily living.C. The disturbance is not due to a general medical condition (e.g., cerebral palsy, hemiplegia, or muscular dystrophy) and does not meet the criteria for a pervasive developmental disorder (PDD).D. If mental retardation is present, the motor difficulties are in excess of those associated with it.1. Infant, Premature/ 9. very low birth weight.ti,ab. 17. clums*.ti,ab.2. premature infant*.ti,ab. 10. extremely low birth weight infant*.ti,ab.18. inco?ordinat*.ti,ab.3. prematurity.ti,ab. 11. 1 or 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 or 6 or 7 or 8 or 9 or 1019. \"perceptuo?motor dysfunction\".ti,ab.4. Infant, Low Birth Weight/ 12. Motor Skills Disorders/ 20. \"perceptual motor difficult*\".ti,ab.5. low birth weight infant*.ti,ab.13. motor skill* disorder*.ti,ab. 21. \"specific development* disorder* of motor function*\".ti,ab.6. low birth weight.ti,ab. 14. \"developmental co?ordination disorder\".ti,ab.22. dyspraxi*.ti,ab.7. Infant, Very Low Birth Weight/15. DCD.ti,ab. 23. dysgraphi*.ti,ab.8. very low birth weight infant*.ti,ab.16. \"clumsy child syndrotme\".i,ab.24. \"development* dyspraxi*\".ti,ab.25. \"deficits in attention, motor control, and perception\".ti,ab.33. \"minor neuro* dysfunction*\".ti,ab.41. \"motor skills\".ti,ab.26. \"psychomotor disorder*\".ti,ab.34. \"minimal brain dysfunction*\".ti,ab.42. Developmental Disabilities/27. \"sensorimotor difficult*\".ti,ab.35. \"development* apra*\".ti,ab.43. \"development* disabilit*\".ti,ab.28. \"sensory integrat* dysfunction*\".ti,ab.36. \"physical* awkward*\".ti,ab.44. \"development* delay disorder*\".ti,ab.29. \"sensory integrat*\".ti,ab. 37. \"motor impair*\".ti,ab. 45. child development disorder*.ti,ab.30. \"nonverbal learn* disabilit*\".ti,ab.38. \"motor delay*\".ti,ab. 46. 33 or 32 or 21 or 26 or 17 or 18 or 30 or 16 or 44 or 25 or 27 or 28 or 40 or 14 or 20 or 24 or 31 or 35 or 22 or 42 or 13 or 23 or 29 or 39 or 36 or 12 or 41 or 15 or 38 or 34 or 45 or 37 or 19 or 4331. \"mov* disorder*\".ti,ab. 39. \"motor learn* disabilit*\".ti,ab.47. 11 and 4632. \"development* right hemisphere syndrome\".ti,ab.40. Motor Skills/NEWCASTLE - OTTAWA QUALITY ASSESSMENT SCALECOHORT STUDIESNote: A study can be awarded a maximum of one star for each numbered item within the Selection and Outcome categories. A maximum of two stars can be given for ComparabilitySelection1) Representativeness of the exposed cohorta) truly representative a school-aged child (5-18 years old) born prematurely (<37 weeks) or with low birth weight (<2500 g) in the community *b) somewhat representative of of a school-aged child (5-18 years old) born prematurely (<37 weeks) or with low birth weight (<2500 g) in the community *c) selected group of users eg nursesd) no description of the derivation of the cohort2) Selection of the non exposed cohorta) drawn from the same community as the exposed cohort *b) drawn from a different sourcec) no description of the derivation of the non exposed cohort3) Ascertainment of exposurea) secure record (eg birth record) *b) structured interview *c) written self reportd) no description4) Demonstration that outcome of interest was not present at start of studya) yes *b) noComparability1) Comparability of cohorts on the basis of the design or analysisa) study controls for co-morbidities *b) study controls for any additional factor: low IQ *Outcome1) Assessment of outcomea) independent blind assessment *b) record linkage *c) self reportd) no description2) Was follow-up long enough for outcomes to occura) yes (select an adequate follow up period for outcome of interest) *b) No3) Adequacy of follow up of cohortsa) complete follow up - all subjects accounted for *b) subjects lost to follow up unlikely to introduce bias - small number lost (> 20 % ) *c) follow up rate < 80 % and no description of those lostd) no statementStudy Total Stars ( /9) Selection ( /4) Comparability(/2) Outcome (/3)Arnaud et al 9 4 2 3Davis et al 9 4 2 3Evensen et al 8 3 2 3Goyen & Lui 8 4 2 2Holsti et al 8 4 2 2Keller et al 8 4 1 3Lee et al 8 4 2 2Marlow et al 19898 4 2 2Marlow et al 19938 4 2 2Marlow et al 20078 4 1 3Study Total Stars ( /9) Selection ( /4) Comparability (/2) Outcome (/3)Burns et al 7 3 1 3Foulder-Hughes & Cooke7 4 1 2Hall et al 7 3 2 2Leosdottir et al 7 4 1 2Powls et al 7 4 1 2Roberts et al 7 4 1 2Taylor et al 7 3 1 3Whitfield et al 7 3 2 2Study Study DesignExperimental Group(s) Control Group Motor OutcomeN Age Range or Mean(SD or range)N Age Range or Mean(SD or range)VLBW & ELBW STUDY GROUPSBurns et al. Case-control54 ELBW (<1000g)12 y 6 mo (8 mo) 55 Term 12 y 5 mo (8 mo)MABCEvensen et al.Cohort 54 VLBW (<1500g)14.1 (0.3) y 83 NGA & Term14.2 (0.3) y MABCHall et al. Cohort 45 ELBW (<1000g)8.8 (0.3) y 90 NBW 8.7 (0.4) y MABCaHolsti et al. Cohort 73 ELBW (<801g)8.8 (7.3-11.6) y 18 Term 9.3 (9-10) y BOTMPTABLE 1 Description of Studies continuedStudy Study DesignExperimental Group(s) Control Group Motor OutcomeN Age Range or Mean(SD or range)N Age Range or Mean(SD or range)Keller et al.Case-Control14 ELBW (500g-999g), 20 VLBW (1000g-1499g)6.4 y, 6.7 y 24 NBW (>2500g)6.4 y Coordination testbLeosdottir et al.Case-Control32 ELBW (<1000g)5.3 \u00E2\u0080\u0093 5.7 y 55 NBW 5.3 \u00E2\u0080\u0093 5.6 y MAPMarlow et al. 1989Case-Control53 ELBW (<1251g)Median (quartile) 73 mo (72-75) 53 NBW 73 mo (72-72.5) TMIMarlow et al. 1993Case-Control51 ELBW (<1251g)96 (85-117) mo 59 NBW (81-106) mo TMIPowls et al. Case-Control47 VLBW (<1250g)12-13 y 60 NBW 12-13 y MABC TABLE 1 Description of Studies continuedStudy Study DesignExperimental Group(s) Control Group Motor OutcomeN Age Range or Mean(SD or range)N Age Range or Mean(SD or range)Roberts et al.Cohort 53 ELBW (<1251g)6 y 53 Term 6 y TMITaylor et al. Case-control60 ELBW (<750g)11 (1.1) y 55 VLBW (750-1499g); 49 NBW11.1 (1.3) y; 11.2 (1.2) yBOTMPWhitfield et al.Case-control90 ELBW (<801g)8.6 y 50 Term 9 (6.5-12.1) y BOTMPVLBW/ELBW AND/OR PRETERM STUDY GROUPSDavis et al. Cohort 255 ELBW (<1000g) or <28 wk8 y 8 mo (4 mo)208 NBW (>2.499kg)8 y 10 mo (5 mo)MABCTABLE 1 Description of Studies continuedStudy Study DesignExperimental Group(s) Control Group Motor OutcomeN Age Range or Mean(SD or range)N Age Range or Mean(SD or range)Goyen & Lui Case-control50 ELBW (<1000g) or <29wk8.8 (0.3) y 50 NBW & Term8.8 (0.4) y MABCLee et al. Case-control42 Preterm (<37wk) and VLBW (<1500g)71 (6.8) mo 69 NBW 72 (6.5) mo PDMSPRETERM STUDY GROUPArnaud et al. Cohort 1237 Very Preterm (<33 wk) 5.1 (0.2) y 195 Preterm (33-34 wks)287 Term8.8 (0.4) y Touwen ExamcTABLE 1 Description of Studies continuedStudy Study DesignExperimental Group(s) Control Group Motor OutcomeN Age Range or Mean(SD or range)N Age Range or Mean(SD or range)Forslund Cohort 41 Preterm(<35 wk)8.4 y 24 NGA & Term8.2 y TMIFoulder-Hughes & CookeCohort 280 Preterm (<32 wk)89.8 (82-101) mo 210 Term 89.9 (72-107) mo MABCMarlow et al.2007Case-control180 very preterm (<26 wk) 6.33 (5.17-7.25) y 158 Term 6.17 (5.08-7.18) y MABCd"@en . "Presentation"@en . "10.14288/1.0081245"@en . "eng"@en . "Unreviewed"@en . "Vancouver : University of British Columbia Library"@en . "Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International"@en . "http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/"@en . "Graduate"@en . "University of British Columbia. RSPT 572"@en . "Physical therapy"@en . "Physiotherapy"@en . "Deveopmental Coordination Disorder (DCD)"@en . "Systematic reviews"@en . "Association of Preterm Birth Weight on Developmental Coordination Disorder: A Systematic Review"@en . "Text"@en . "Sound"@en . "http://hdl.handle.net/2429/31876"@en .