Summary of findings table ‐ Early developmental intervention programmes vs standard follow‐up: Motor outcome at school age (Griffiths Locomotor, MABC)
Summary of findings table ‐ Early developmental intervention… showed no clear difference in motor outcome at school age (low score on MABC) compared with standard follow‐up (low certainty).
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Summary of findings table ‐ Early developmental intervention programmes vs standard follow‐up Motor outcome at school age (Griffiths Locomotor, MABC) · preterm infants Early developmental intervention programmes provided post hospital discharge to prevent motor and cognitive… (2024) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | no estimate extracted | 3 studies · 265 participants | Low |
Summary of findings table ‐ Early developmental intervention programmes vs standard follow‐up Motor outcome at school age (low score on MABC) · preterm infants Summary of findings table ‐ Early developmental intervention… showed no clear difference in motor outcome at school age (low score on MABC) compared with standard follow‐up (low certainty). Early developmental intervention programmes provided post hospital discharge to prevent motor and cognitive… (2024) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | RR 1.04 [0.82, 1.32] | 3 studies · 413 participants | Low |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Early developmental intervention programmes provided post hospital discharge to prevent motor and cognitive impairment in preterm infants 2024 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | Not reported | list not extracted yet | Not assessed |
Studies behind the findings
None of these reviews ties its included studies to this outcome in the data here. Cochrane reviews and reviews with headline outcomes only do not list their studies yet.
How reviews are matched to this question
Reviews word the same question differently. Four decision models (TypeSafe's Jev, Liquid AI's d1-ultra, SubQ Snap and Baseten's Elephant) judged each wording of the population, intervention, comparator and outcome against the others; two wordings count as the same when at least three of them agree and none clearly disagrees, and findings count as this question only when all four elements match. Timing, setting and subgroup never split a question: they are shown on each finding.