Skip to main content
Download PDF
  • Systematic review update
  • Open access
  • Published:

The general movements assessment in term and late-preterm infants diagnosed with neonatal encephalopathy, as a predictive tool of cerebral palsy by 2 years of age: a scoping review protocol

Systematic Reviews volume 9, Article number: 154 (2020) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Prediction of long-term neurodevelopmental outcomes remains an elusive goal for neonatology. Clinical and socioeconomic markers have not proven to be adequately reliable. The limitation in prognostication includes those term and late-preterm infants born with neonatal encephalopathy. The General Movements Assessment tool by Prechtl has demonstrated reliability for identifying infants at risk for neuromotor impairment. This tool is non-invasive and cost-effective. The purpose of this study is to identify the published literature on how this tool applies to the prediction of cerebral palsy in term and late-preterm infants diagnosed with neonatal encephalopathy and so detect the research gaps.

Methods

We will conduct a systematic scoping review for data on sensitivity, specificity, positive, and negative predictive value and describe the strengths and limitations of the results. This review will consider studies that included infants more than or equal to 34 + 0 weeks gestational age, diagnosed with neonatal encephalopathy, with a General Movements Assessment done between birth to six months of life and an assessment for cerebral palsy by at least 2 years of age. Experimental and quasi-experimental study designs including randomized controlled trials, non-randomized controlled trials, before and after studies, interrupted time-series studies and systematic reviews will be considered. Case reports, case series, case control, and cross-sectional studies will be included. Text, opinion papers, and animal studies will not be considered for inclusion in this scoping review as this is a highly specific and medical topic. Studies in the English language only will be considered. Studies published from at least 1970 will be included as this is around the time when the General Movements Assessment was first introduced in neonatology as a potential predictor of neuromotor outcomes. We will search five databases (MEDLINE, Embase, PsychINFO, Scopus, and CINAHL). Two reviewers will conduct all screening and data extraction independently. The articles will be categorized according to key findings and a critical appraisal performed.

Discussion

The results of this review will guide future research to improve early identification and timely intervention in infants with neonatal encephalopathy at risk of neuromotor impairment.

Systematic review registration

Title registration with Joanna Briggs Institute https://joannabriggs.org/ebp/systematic_review_register.

Peer Review reports

Background

Prediction of long-term neurodevelopmental outcomes remains an elusive goal for neonatology. Clinical and socioeconomic outcome markers have not proven to be adequately reliable [1, 2]. The limitation in prognostication includes those term and late-preterm infants born with neonatal encephalopathy (NE).

NE describes those infants born with an atypical neurological exam and is by definition heterogeneous in etiology [3]. The specific etiology may not be clear for months to years later but the presentation is characterized by central nervous system disruption [4] and is associated with an increased risk for long-term neurodevelopmental challenges including cerebral palsy (CP). Infants presenting with NE are managed now with therapeutic hypothermia as the standard of care; this is presumptive management, and is time sensitive should the etiology be hypoxia/ischemia (hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy (HIE)), in term and late-preterm infants [4, 5]. Therapeutic hypothermia reduces the likelihood of challenging outcomes by containing any potential ongoing neurological injury. It does not, however, completely eradicate the possibility of long-term neurodevelopmental disability [6].

For parents of infants affected by NE, the desire for accurate prognostication is of tantamount importance [7]. This information can guide decisions around early intervention and, in severe cases, withdrawal of care for those infants with severe involvement. For those infants that survive NE and are at increased risk for CP, recent international recommendations now call for early detection and intervention of CP in order to improve functional outcomes [1, 8, 9]. These recommendations are based on mounting evidence for better detection tools as well as the benefits of early intervention.

Historically, clinical and radiological predictors of neurological outcomes were used to classify the degree of NE. Severity scoring systems include the classical grading by Sarnat and Sarnat [10] in 1976, to the newer scores by Miller et al. [11] in 2004, with added parameters such as oral feeding difficulties and the presence of seizures. Radiologically, specific findings of diffusion restriction on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) have been linked to later development of CP [4]. These predictors, however, were not sufficiently accurate [1, 2] and the high costs of imaging as well as shortages in access further restricts the utility. Neurological examinations have historically been limited in predictive value but recent emerging evidence with an observational tool, the General Movements Assessment (GMA) developed by Dr. Heinz Prechtl has demonstrated strong predictive value [12, 13].

The GMA is a non-invasive, cost-effective tool with demonstrated reliability for identifying infants at risk for neuromotor impairment [14]. General movements (GMs) are complex, highly variable, whole-body movements which emerge in the fetus and progress through an age-specific developmental trajectory, dissipating by the end of the first 4 to 5 months of life [13]. Developmental progression and variety, or lack thereof, are indicators of nervous system integrity and can reflect neurodevelopmental outcomes [15]. Cramped synchronized (CS) and absent fidgety movements are considered abnormal GMAs, demonstrating developmental stereotypy [13].

Several researchers have looked at the GMA from different aspects. A preliminary search of PROSPERO, MEDLINE, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Database of Systematic Reviews and Implementation Reports was conducted to assess this research. There were two current systematic reviews on GMA, one in 2018 [16] and the other in 2017 [8]. In addition, eight older reviews were identified: seven systematic reviews [13, 17,18,19,20,21,22] and one literature review [23] done between 2001 and 2013. The search also revealed three pending reviews identified around the topic of the predictive value of GMA [24,25,26]. These pending reviews were all systematic reviews.

The key characteristics and main findings of the above reviews on GMA are presented in Table 1 in Appendix 1. In general, the latest systematic review, by Kwong et al. in 2018 [16], compared assessments of GMA and found that the Prechtl method had the best prediction of CP. In the 2017 systematic review by Novak et al. [9], their group reviewed the evidence for the best tools for early, accurate diagnosis and intervention in infants at risk for CP. They considered all gestational ages (GA) and all diagnoses for infants that were high-risk. They recommended a combined approach for early CP diagnosis including history, neuroimaging, standardized neurological, and standardized motor assessments, to facilitate timely diagnosis and intervention. The other systematic reviews and literature review were all more than 5 years ago with the latest in 2013 [13]. The findings of these older reviews are also summarized in Table 1 in Appendix 1. Similar to the latest two reviews, the older reviews either looked at preterms or all GA groups and diagnoses.

Of the three pending systematic reviews identified in PROSPERO, the oldest review protocol (Kwong et al.) [26] was registered in 2016 by similar authors of the 2018 review mentioned above. The next review protocol was registered in February 2018 by Raghuram et al. [24], and plans restrictions to preterms with all diagnoses, specifically examining automated movement recognition technology with the GMA. The third review protocol, registered in April 2018, by Angélica Valencia [25] is limited to preterm infants and is evaluating the type of method used for the recognition of the GMA, not the relationship of the GMA to neuromotor outcomes. None of these reviews specifically look at the population we identified for this scoping review, that is, term and late-preterm infants with NE. Thus, a gap exists in the literature to clearly identify the evidence for this specific population.

The objective of this review is therefore, to identify the scope of the research with regard to the GMA and its ability to predict CP, in term and late-preterm infants with a diagnosis of NE, and to identify the gaps in the literature.

Methods/design

Review question

The primary research question for this review is: What is the published data on the predictive value of the GMA for the diagnosis of CP by 2 years of age in infants born at term or late-preterm presenting with NE?

The secondary research question is: What is the gap in the literature when the GMA is used to predict CP by 2 years of age in infants born at term or late-preterm presenting with NE?

Study design

A scoping method is chosen for this type of review as to fulfilling of the objective of the review it requires searching and assessing a wide range of research methodologies involving the use of the GMA in CP prediction. A scoping review will capture all types of relevant research on the topic in a systematic, transparent, rigorous, and reproducible manner. This scoping review will be conducted in accordance with the JBI methodology for scoping reviews [27]. The objectives, inclusion criteria, and methods for this scoping review are detailed in advance and documented in a proposal (included as Additional file 1). The title of our review was registered with JBI.

Inherent in the nature of the scoping review is the inclusiveness of a wide range of literature, and so we anticipate differences in the data quality. Critical appraisal and data synthesis therefore will be challenging in terms of conclusive evidence as opposed to in a systematic review. The scoping review methodology is however especially advantageous to our question as these types of reviews target areas that have not been comprehensively assessed before.

Eligibility criteria

The participant, concept, context (PCC) framework for scoping reviews will be used to define the review focus and can be found in Table 2 in Appendix 2.

Participants

This review will consider studies that include infants ≥ 34 + 0 weeks GA diagnosed with NE with a GMA done between birth to 6 months of life and an assessment for CP by at least 2 years of age (Table 2 in Appendix 2).

Reviews with infants born with life threatening congenital abnormalities, congenital viral infections, an abnormal karyotype and metabolic disorders will be excluded. Those studies without a GMA or with any automated application of the GMA will also be excluded.

Concept

GMA as a predictor of CP by 2 years of age is the main concept. Studies that report on sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) will be considered for inclusion. Detailed definition of concepts can be found in Table 3 in Appendix 3.

Context

This review will consider studies that reported on infants with an existing diagnosis of NE managed in hospitals and diagnosed by the standard of care assessment of a neurological history and examination. Studies will be considered from all countries that have outcomes reported in the acute neonatal and in the follow-up period by 2 years of age. Studies in the English language only will be considered as there is no team member with adequate language skills to translate from any other language.

Search strategy

A range of electronic databases will be searched to include medicine, nursing, allied health professions, sociology, psychology, education, and social work. This scoping review will consider both experimental and quasi-experimental study designs including randomized controlled trials, non-randomized controlled trials, before and after studies and interrupted time-series studies. Case reports, case series, case control, and cross-sectional studies will be included. In addition, systematic reviews that meet the inclusion criteria will be considered. Text and opinion papers will not be considered for inclusion in this scoping review as this is a highly specific and medical topic. Animal studies will not be included. Studies published from at least 1970 will be included as this is around the time when the GMA was first introduced in neonatology as a potential predictor of neuromotor outcomes [12]. The reference lists of articles will be scanned and experts in the infant developmental field will be consulted to identify studies relevant to our topic.

The search strategy will be phased, firstly created in Ovid MEDLINE using a combination of index terms and keywords around general movements, Prechtl, brain disease, HIE, and perinatal asphyxia. An initial limited search of Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and PsychINFO was undertaken to identify articles on the topic (see Additional file 2). There were no previous similar reviews. The text words contained in the titles and abstracts of relevant articles, and the index terms used to describe the articles from this limited search will then be used to develop a more refined full search strategy in the second phase, for MEDLINE, Embase, PsychINFO, Scopus, and CINAHL (Appendix 3). The search strategy, including all identified keywords and index terms, will be adapted for each included information source.

Study selection

EndNote X9 will be used for citation collation. Duplicates will be removed manually. Covidence will be used for screening by two independent reviewers (JS and ML). Disagreements will be resolved through a third reviewer (RB). The results of the search will be reported in a Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR) flow diagram [28].

Data extraction, analysis, and synthesis

Publications meeting the inclusion criteria will have a full text review to validate their eligibility. Each article will be assessed independently by two authors (JS and RB). Extraction will be done after full text screening using a data extraction tool developed by the reviewers. Excluded studies closely meeting the inclusion criteria will be included in a separate table as they may contain many elements of our inclusion criteria but not present separately the specific criteria of our interest. Further investigation of their data may provide significant results. Authors will be contacted to access further information and reassess eligibility of these studies. Excluded studies will be documented with reasons for their exclusion.

The data extracted from the identified studies will include specific details about the population, concept, and context. Two tables will be generated with the first table having information on the key characteristics of each study, including author, year of publication, geographical setting, type of study, demographics of the participants, period over which the study was conducted, the method of identification of neonates at high-risk, if therapeutic hypothermia was instituted as management for NE, type of spontaneous movement assessment used, age at which participants were assessed, the age at which CP was diagnosed, and the methods used for neurological examination in the studies. The second table will have information on the key findings, the predictive indices used for the GMA in relation to CP (sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV), limitations of the studies, and where relevant, reasons for exclusion in the studies that met most but not all of the inclusion criteria. These lists will be iterative. As the process evolves, the data extraction form may require modification to ensure all relevant information is included. Additionally, even though this was a scoping review and does not require a critical appraisal, the critical appraisal tool for JBI [29] will help to identify differences and similarities between the included studies. The answers to the JBI critical appraisal tool will be detailed in a table.

Discussion

The extracted data will be presented in diagrammatic or tabular form in a manner that aligns with the objective of this scoping review. A narrative summary will accompany the tabulated and/or charted results and will describe how the results relate to the reviews objective and question. The critical appraisal result will also be tabulated and this will be used to further identify the strengths and limitations of the studies as well as the key findings in relationship to the objective of this scoping review. The strengths and limitations of our scoping review method on the credibility of the results will be detailed. The discussion and conclusions will reflect on the implications for future research and patient management.

Protocol amendments

Important amendments to the protocol will be reported with the results of the review.

What this study will add

This study will examine the scope of the literature with respect to the use of the GMA in NE for the prediction of CP. Assessment of the extent of the knowledge on this topic seems to have not previously been done. By inclusion of a critical appraisal of the available relevant literature, it will facilitate an appreciation of the quality of the existing knowledge in this area. It will therefore identify gaps in the research especially in the setting of NE management with therapeutic hypothermia.

Availability of data and materials

Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analyzed during the current study. Materials during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Abbreviations

CP:

Cerebral palsy

CS:

Cramped synchronized

GMs:

General movements

GA:

Gestational age

GMA:

General Movements Assessment

HIE:

Hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy

JBI:

Joanna Briggs Institute

MRI:

Magnetic resonance imaging

NE:

Neonatal encephalopathy

NPV:

Negative predictive value

PCC:

Participant, concept, context

PPV:

Positive predictive value

PRISMA-ScR:

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses extension for scoping review

References

  1. Finer NN, Robertson CM, Richards RT, Pinnell LE, Peters KL. Hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy in term neonates: perinatal factors and outcome. J Pediatr. 1981;98(1):112–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-3476(81)80555-0.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Campbell EE, Gilliland J, Dworatzek PDN, De Vrijer B, Penava D, Seabrook JA. Socioeconomic status and adverse birth outcomes: A population-based Canadian sample. Journal of Biosocial Science Cambridge University Press. 2018;50(1):102–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Executive Summary: Neonatal Encephalopathy and Neurologic Outcome, Second Edition. Obstetrics & Gynecology, (2014) 123(4), 896–901. doi: 10.1097/01.AOG.0000445580.65983.d2.

  4. Glass HC. Hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy and other neonatal encephalopathies. [Review]. Continuum (Minneap Minn). 2018 Feb;57–71.

  5. American Academy of Pediatrics, Committee on Fetus and Newborn. Hypothermia and neonatal encephalopathy. Pediatrics. 2014;133(6):1146–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Staub K, Baardsnes J, Hébert N, Hébert M, Newell S, Pearce R. Our child is not just a gestational age. A first-hand account of what parents want and need to know before premature birth. Acta Paediatr. 2014;103(10):1035–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Banihani R TCP. Neonatal encephalopathy. In: Needelman H JB, editor. Follow-Up for NICU Graduates. 2018. p. 155–78.

  8. Shepherd E, Salam RA, Middleton P, Han S, Makrides M, McIntyre S, et al. Neonatal interventions for preventing cerebral palsy: an overview of Cochrane Systematic Reviews. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2018, Issue 6. Art. No.: CD012409. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012409.pub2.

  9. Novak I, Morgan C, Adde L, et al. Early, accurate diagnosis and early intervention in cerebral palsy: advances in diagnosis and treatment. JAMA Pediatr. 2017;171(9):897–907. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2017.1689.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Sarnat H, Sarnat M. Neonatal encephalopathy following fetal distress. Arch Neurol. 1976;33:695–705.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Miller SP, Latal B, Clark H, Barnwell A, Glidden D, Barkovich AJ, et al. Clinical signs predict 30-month neurodevelopmental outcome after neonatal encephalopathy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2004;190(1):93–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0002-9378(03)00908-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Einspieler C, Prechtl HFR, Bos AF, Ferrari F, Cioni G. In: Hart HM, Pountney M, Pearsall S (Editors). Developmental Medicine No. 167. Prechtl’s method on the qualitative assessment of general movements in preterm, term and young infants. 1st ed. Mac Keith Press c 2004. p ix - xi.

  13. Bosanquet M, Copeland L, Ware R, Boyd R. A systematic review of tests to predict cerebral palsy in young children. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2013;55:418–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Heineman KR, Hadders-Algra M. Evaluation of neuromotor function in infancy-A systematic review of available methods. J Dev Behav Pediatr. 2008: Aug 29(4):315-23. doi: 10.1097/DBP.0b013e318182a4ea.

  15. Hadders-Algra M. General Movements: A Window for early identification of children at high risk for developmental disorders. J Pediatr. 2004;145(2 Supplement):S12–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Kwong AKL, Fitzgerald TL, Doyle LW, Cheong JL, Spittle AJ. Predictive validity of spontaneous early infant movement for later cerebral palsy: a systematic review. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2018;60(5):480–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Noble Y, Boyd R. Neonatal assessments for the preterm infant up to 4 months corrected age: a systematic review. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2012;54:129–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Zuk L. Fetal and infant spontaneous general movements as predictors of developmental disabilities. Dev Disabil Res Rev 2011;17:93–101. Available from: https://proxy.queensu.ca/login?url=http://ovidsp.ovid.com?T=JS&CSC=Y&NEWS=N&PAGE=fulltext&D=med7&AN=23362029, https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/ddrr.1104, https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ddrr.1104.

  19. Darsaklis V, Snider LM, Majnemer A, Mazer B. Predictive validity of Prechtl’s method on the qualitative assessment of general movements: a systematic review of the evidence. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2011;53(10):896–906.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Burger M, Louw QA. The predictive validity of general movements—a systematic review. Eur J Paediatr Neurol. 2009;13(5):408–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Spittle AJ, Doyle LW, Boyd RN. A systematic review of the clinimetric properties of neuromotor assessments for preterm infants during the first year of life. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2008;50(4):254–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Hadders-Algra M. Evaluation of motor function in young infants by means of the assessment of general movements: a review. Pediatr Phys Ther. 2001;13(1):27–36.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Santos RS, Araújo APQC, Porto MAS. Early diagnosis of abnormal development of preterm newborns: assessment instruments. J. Pediatr. (Rio J.) [Internet]. 2008 Aug [cited 2019 Aug 07];84(4):289-299. Available from: http://www.scielo.br.proxy.queensu.ca/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0021-75572008000400003&lng=en, http://dx.doi.org.proxy.queensu.ca/10.1590/S0021-75572008000400003.

  24. Raghuram K, Orlandi S, Church P, Chau T, Uleryk E, Pechlivanoglou P, et al. Can an automated general movements assessment be used to predict motor impairment in high-risk infants? A systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy. PROSPERO International prospective register of systematic reviews. 2018 Apr 16; Available from: http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?ID=CRD42018087892.

  25. Valencia A. Discriminative and predictive validity of the general movements assessment: a systematic review. PROSPERO International prospective register of systematic reviews. 2018 14;Available from: http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?ID=CRD42018088724.

  26. Kwong AKL, Fitzgerald TL, Spittle AJ, Cheong JL, Doyle LW, Einspieler C. A systematic review of the predictive validity of observational early infant motor assessments for subsequent cerebral palsy. PROSPERO International prospective register of systematic reviews. 2016; Available from: http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?ID=CRD42016042551.

  27. The Joanna Briggs Institute. The System for the Unified Management, Assessment and Review of Information (SUMARI) [Internet]. 2017 [cited 2019]. Available from: https://www.jbisumari.org/.

  28. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. [Internet]. 2009 [cited 2019]. Available from: http://prisma-statement.org/PRISMAStatement/FlowDiagram.aspx.

  29. Moola S, Munn Z, Tufanaru C, Aromataris E, Sears K, Sfetcu R, Currie M, Qureshi R, Mattis P, Lisy K, Mu P-F. Chapter 7: Systematic reviews of etiology and risk. In: Aromataris E, Munn Z (Editors). Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewer's Manual. The Joanna Briggs Institute, 2017. Available from https://reviewersmanual.joannabriggs.org/.

  30. World Health Organization. ICD-10 International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems: 10th Revision, Volume 2 Instruction Manual. www.who.int/classifications/icd/ICD-10_2nd_ed_volume2.pdf (Accessed on September 7, 2010).

  31. Rosenbaum P, Paneth N, Leviton A, et al. A report: the definition and classification of cerebral palsy April 2006. Dev Med Child Neurol Suppl. 2007;109:8–14.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Einspieler C, Prechtl HFR. Prechtlʼs assessment of general movements: a diagnostic tool for the functional assessment of the young nervous system. Ment.Retard.Dev.Disabil.Res.Rev. 2005;11(1):61–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Altman DG, Bland JM. Diagnostic tests. 1: Sensitivity and specificity. BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 308(6943), 1552. 1994. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.308.6943.1552.

  34. Altman DG, Bland JM. Diagnostic tests 2: Predictive values. BMJ (Clinical research ed). 1994;309(6947):102. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.309.6947.102.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This review will contribute to a Master in Healthcare Quality degree for JS. The authors would also like to acknowledge the librarians that assisted with this research project, namely, from the Sunnybrook R. Ian MacDonald Library, Henry Lam and Reena Besa, as well as the librarians Paola Durando and Sandra McKeown of the Bracken Health Sciences Library, Queen’s University.

Funding

There is no funding required for this review.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Canada

    Judy Seesahai, Maureen Luther, Carmen Cindy Rhoden, Paige Terrien Church, Elizabeth Asztalos & Rudaina Banihani

  2. University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

    Judy Seesahai, Maureen Luther, Carmen Cindy Rhoden, Paige Terrien Church, Elizabeth Asztalos & Rudaina Banihani

Authors
  1. Judy Seesahai
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Maureen Luther
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Carmen Cindy Rhoden
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Paige Terrien Church
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Elizabeth Asztalos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Rudaina Banihani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

First author: Judy Seesahai. Contributions: Substantial contributions to research design, acquisition, analysis and interpretation of data as well as drafting the paper. Second author: Maureen Luther. Contributions: Contribution to acquisition, analysis, and interpretation of data as well as involved in revisions to the paper. Paige Terrien Church. Contributions: Substantial contributions to research design, analysis, and interpretation of data as well as drafting the paper. Carmen Cindy Rhoden. Contributions: Initial data search and drafting of paper. Elizabeth Azstalos. Contributions: Substantial contributions to research design, acquisition, analysis, and interpretation of data as well as drafting the paper. Supervisor: Thomas Rotter. Contributions: Substantial contributions to research design and reviewing of the paper. Principal Investigator: Rudaina Banihani. Contributions: Substantial contributions to research design, acquisition, analysis, and interpretation of data as well as drafting the paper. The author(s) read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rudaina Banihani.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Ethical approval will not be required as this is a scoping review of the literature and will not contain information directly identifying patients or content requiring patient consent.

Consent for publication

Not applicable

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Additional file 1.

The General Movements Assessment in Term and Late-preterm newborns diagnosed with Neonatal Encephalopathy, as a predictive tool of Cerebral Palsy at two years of age - A Scoping Review

Additional file 2.

Ovid MEDLINE search. Search conducted on Ovid MEDLINE(R), Ovid MEDLINE(R) Daily and Epub Ahead of Print, In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations 1946 to Present

Appendices

Appendix 1

Table 1 Summary of reviews (published and pending) on the general movements assessment and its predictive value for neuromotor outcomes
Full size table

Appendix 2

Table 2 Inclusion and exclusion criteria for the prediction of CP by the GMA in late-preterm and term infants with NE
Full size table

Appendix 3

Table 3 Definitions of concepts
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Seesahai, J., Luther, M., Rhoden, C.C. et al. The general movements assessment in term and late-preterm infants diagnosed with neonatal encephalopathy, as a predictive tool of cerebral palsy by 2 years of age: a scoping review protocol. Syst Rev 9, 154 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-020-01358-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-020-01358-x

Keywords

Systematic Reviews

ISSN: 2046-4053