Abstract
Background
Children born preterm with very low birthweight (VLBW) face long‐lasting neurodevelopmental challenges, where multidisciplinary assessments are warranted. The International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) provides a framework for understanding and conceptualising these outcomes.
Objectives
We aimed to review clinical and neuroimaging findings from birth to adulthood in a Norwegian cohort of individuals born preterm with VLBW (gestational age <37 weeks, birthweight ≤1500 g) within the framework of ICF.
Data Sources
We searched PubMed and Embase for articles reporting results of the Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU) Low Birth Weight in a Lifetime Perspective study.
Study Selection and Data Extraction
We included original articles reporting proportions of adverse outcomes, mean group differences, risk factors or associations between outcomes. Data were extracted according to ICF's two‐level classification. Body functions and structures comprised outcomes of brain structures, cognition, mental health, vision, pain and physical health. Activities and participation comprised motor skills, general and social functioning, education, employment, and health‐related quality of life.
Synthesis
We performed a qualitative synthesis of included articles. Where mean (SD) was reported, we calculated group differences in SD units.
Results
Fifty‐eight publications were included. Within body functions and structures, increased prevalence of brain structure pathology, lower cognitive performance, mental health problems, visual and physical health impairments through childhood, adolescence and young adulthood were reported among preterm VLBW participants compared with controls. Within activities and participation, motor problems, lower general and social functioning, and lower academic attainment were found. Perinatal factors were associated with several outcomes, and longitudinal findings suggested persistent consequences of being born preterm with VLBW.
Conclusions
Being born preterm with VLBW has long‐term influences on body functions and structures, activities and participation. The ICF is appropriate for assessing general domains of functioning and guiding the management of individuals born preterm with VLBW.
Keywords: cognition, magnetic resonance imaging, mental health, motor skills, social functioning, very low birthweight
Synopsis.
Study question
Using the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health framework, what are the rates of adverse outcomes and mean group differences from infancy to adulthood for those born preterm with VLBW and term in a Norwegian cohort?
What's already known
Being born preterm with VLBW involves a high risk for neurodevelopmental difficulties that may continue into early adulthood.
What this study adds
Multidisciplinary and neuroimaging findings in a well‐defined study population from birth to 28 years of age show that being born preterm with VLBW has persistent influences on brain, cognition, mental health, vision, pain, physical health, motor skills, general and social functioning, education and employment, and health‐related quality of life representing various components of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health.
1. BACKGROUND
Children born preterm with very low birthweight (VLBW) may face a spectrum of challenges. 1 As the preterm brain is vulnerable to injury and developmental disturbances, 2 the risk of later neurodevelopmental problems is substantial. 3 This may include adverse cognitive abilities, 4 mental health, 5 , 6 cardiometabolic 7 and respiratory outcomes, 8 motor skills, 9 , 10 , 11 social functioning, 12 and educational attainment. 13 With this broad range of possible adverse outcomes, multidisciplinary assessments are warranted. The first generations that survived following improvements in neonatal care of preterm birth in the 1980s are entering mid‐adulthood, and there is increasing evidence that the various developmental problems may continue into adulthood. 14 , 15
The International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) of the World Health Organization provides a scientific basis for understanding health and health‐related states, outcomes and determinants, and changes in health functioning. 16 This model brings forth a framework for better conceptualising the wide‐ranging functional outcomes of preterm birth and the factors affecting them. 1 Within the ICF, a person's health functioning is multi‐dimensionally related to body functions and structures, activities and participation, and personal and environmental factors. While body functions and structures refer to physiological functions of body systems and the anatomical parts of the body, activities concern the execution of tasks or actions, and participation involvement in a life situation. 16
The Norwegian University of Science and Technology Low Birth Weight in a Lifetime Perspective (NTNU LBW Life) study was the first to examine the brain in a cohort of preterm children with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). 17 Furthermore, this prospective cohort study adopted a multidisciplinary approach that enables the long‐term consequences of VLBW to be reviewed using the ICF model. In this systematic review, we present a qualitative synthesis of neuroimaging findings and clinical outcomes reported from the NTNU LBW Life study in childhood, adolescence and early adulthood. Within the framework of ICF, this systematic review aimed to describe (1) proportions of adverse outcomes in individuals born preterm with VLBW, (2) mean group differences in outcomes compared with those born at term, and (3) risk factors for adverse outcomes and associations between outcomes.
2. METHODS
2.1. Data sources
A literature search was carried out by the first author (KAIE) in PubMed and Embase in collaboration with the Head librarian at the NTNU University Library. Relevant MeSH terms, Emtree terms and keywords were combined with the site of the study or authors AMB and JS who initiated the study, and MSI and KAIE, leading follow‐ups in adolescence and young adulthood. The full search strategy is documented in Table S1.
2.2. Study selection and data extraction
Inclusion criteria were original peer‐reviewed articles published in English reporting results of the VLBW cohort from Trondheim, Norway, born in 1986–1988, in terms of proportions of adverse outcomes, mean values of outcomes compared with controls, risk factors for adverse outcomes or associations between outcomes. Exclusion criteria were systematic reviews or meta‐analyses, conference abstracts, editorials, letters and commentaries. KAIE and KADA screened titles and abstracts separately for eligibility. Disagreements were resolved by a discussion between the two reviewers. Next, full text of all included articles was assessed, and key characteristics were extracted, i.e. age at follow‐up, aims, methods, reported outcomes, risk factors and associations.
2.3. Synthesis
A qualitative synthesis of included articles was performed. Several articles presented outcomes within more than one domain or component of the ICF. If more than one article reported the same outcome, we used the results based on the larger sample. Where mean and standard deviation (SD) were given, we calculated group differences in SD units.
We grouped articles by their main outcome according to the two‐level classification of the ICF (Table S2). 16 The ICF has two parts, each with two components. Part 1 concerns functioning and disability, with the components of Body functions and structures and Activities and participation. Part 2 concerns contextual factors with the components of Environmental factors and Personal factors. 16 Each component consists of various domains. Within Body functions and structures, we included outcomes of the brain as a structure of the nervous system and outcomes of cognition and mental health according to the mental functions chapter. 16 We included outcomes of vision and pain according to the chapter on sensory functions and pain, and outcomes of physical health according to chapters on cardiovascular and respiratory systems, and metabolic and endocrine systems, and neuromusculoskeletal and movement‐related functions. Within Activities and participation, we included outcomes of motor skills according to the mobility chapter, physical activity as self‐care, outcomes of general and social functioning according to chapters on general tasks and demands, and interpersonal interactions and relationships. We further included outcomes of education and employment according to the major life areas chapter. 16 Health‐related quality of life was classified according to the community, social and civic life chapter and the other chapters of Activities and participation, as this is an overarching concept. 18
We included birthweight, gestational age, perinatal morbidity, i.e. Apgar scores, days to regain birthweight, intraventricular haemorrhage, days on mechanical ventilation and days spent in the neonatal intensive care unit, and sex as Personal factors that relate to the individual. 16 Parental socioeconomic status (SES) and parental mental health were included as Environmental factors, which refer to all aspects of the external or extrinsic world that form the context of an individual's life and have an impact on that person's functioning. 16
2.4. Ethics approval
The NTNU LBW Life study was approved by the Regional Committee for Medical and Health Research Ethics of Central Norway (78–00, 4.2005.2605 and 2013/636). 19
3. RESULTS
The search resulted in 735 unique records (Figure 1), whereof 58 articles were eligible for this review, published between 1992 and 2019. Twenty‐one articles gave proportions of adverse outcomes, 38 reported mean values compared with controls and 50 reported risk factors or associations between outcomes (Table S3). Forty‐nine articles reported main outcomes within Body functions and structures and 9 articles within Activities and participation (Figure 2).
FIGURE 1.

Flowchart for selection of articles from the NTNU Low Birth Weight in a Lifetime Perspective study. Abbreviations: NTNU LBW Life, Norwegian University of Science and Technology Low Birth Weight in a Lifetime Perspective study
FIGURE 2.

Main outcomes reported in articles of the NTNU Low Birth Weight in a Lifetime Perspective study according to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. Abbreviations: ICF, International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health; NTNU, Norwegian University of Science and Technology; VLBW, very low birthweight
The NTNU LBW Life study included a preterm born VLBW group, defined by a birthweight ≤1500 g, admitted to the neonatal intensive care unit at St. Olavs Hospital, Trondheim, in 1986–88. A term born control group with birthweight ≥10th percentile adjusted for gestational age, sex and parity, was born to mothers in a 10% random sample of pregnant women residing in the Trondheim area in 1986–88. 19 Eligible for follow‐up were 86 of 121 VLBW infants, and 118 of 120 control infants, as 33 VLBW infants died in the neonatal period, and two infants in each group were excluded due to having a diagnosis of a syndrome or congenital anomaly. 19 In the initial follow‐ups in childhood, only the 1988 VLBW birth cohort was examined, later supplemented with the 1986 and 1987 VLBW birth cohorts for assessment in adolescence and young adult age. 19 Clinical assessment tools and different qualitative and quantitative MRI modalities used in the included articles are presented in Table 1.
TABLE 1.
Clinical assessment tools and neuroimaging modalities used in articles of the NTNU Low Birth Weight in a Lifetime Perspective study according to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health
| Age at follow‐up | Body functions and structures | Activities and participation | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Brain | Cognition | Mental health | Sensory functions (vision) and pain | Physical health | Motor skills | General and social functioning, HRQoL | |
| 1 year | MRI 1.5T a , Touwen neurological examination 17 | BSID MDI, DDST Language and Personal/Social 54 | Head circumference, weight 58 | BSID PDI, DDST Fine and Gross motor 54 | |||
| 5–6 years | MRI 1.5T a , Touwen neurological examination 21 | WPPSI‐R 21 | Subscales of PDMS 21 | ||||
| 14–15 years | MRI 1.5T b , 22 , 23 DTI, voxel‐wise statistical analysis, 26 MRS 81 | Subtests of WISC‐III, Knox Cube, CPT, Stroop, WCST, TMT A & B, 29 VMI‐IV, 30 dichotic listening 66 | KSADS, ADHD‐R, ASSQ, 34 ASEBA CBCL/TRF/YSR, SDQ 38 | Visual acuity, contrast sensitivity, 40 strabismus, convergence, accommodation, stereopsis, nystagmus, saccades, smooth pursuit 41 | Head circumference, height, weight 44 | Movement ABC, 44 GP, 50 Inter‐ and intramodal matching task 82 | |
| 18–20 years | WAIS‐III, 28 BRIEF‐A, 83 CPT, Design and Verbal Fluency, TMT 1–5, PASAT, Tower, Stroop, 33 VMI‐V, 31 WMS‐III 32 | KSADS, ADHD‐R, 35 ASEBA ASR, AQ 39 | Head circumference, height, weight, waist circumference, skinfold thickness, blood pressure c , flow‐mediated dilatation of brachial artery, spirometry, maximal oxygen uptake 45 | ||||
| 23 years | MRI 3T d , FreeSurfer, DTI, 67 fMRI, 56 EEG e , 84 | Adapted Not X‐CPT for fMRI, 56 adapted cued go/no‐go task for EEG 84 | ASEBA ASR, BDI 53 | Head circumference, height, weight 49 | Movement ABC‐2, GP, TMT 5, HiMAT 49 |
SF‐36 53 |
|
| 26–28 years | MRI 3T f , FreeSurfer, DTI, TRACULA 85 | M.I.N.I. Plus, 36 ASEBA ASR, AQ, PDI‐21 19 | Self‐report of pain, 42 , 43 quantitative sensory testing 43 | Height, weight, waist and hip circumference, skinfold thickness, blood pressure c , 46 DXA g , 47 glucose metabolites, lipid profile 46 |
GAF 36 |
||
Abbreviations: ADHD‐R, Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder Rating Scale—Fourth edition; AQ, autism spectrum quotient; ASEBA, Achenbach System of Empirically Based Assessment; ASR, Adult Self‐Report; ASSQ, Autism Spectrum Screening Questionnaire; BDI, Beck Depression Inventory; BRIEF‐A, Behaviour Rating Inventory of Executive Function—Adult version; BSID, Bayley Scales of Infant Development; CBCL, Child Behaviour Checklist; CF, Child Form; CGAS, Children's Global Assessment Scale; CHQ, Child Health Questionnaire; CPT, Conners Continuous Performance Test; DDST, Denver Developmental Screening Test; DTI, diffusion tensor imaging; DXA, dual x‐ray absorptiometry; EEG, electroencephalography; fMRI, functional magnetic resonance imaging; GAF, Global Assessment of Functioning; GP, Grooved Pegboard; HiMAT, High‐Level Mobility Assessment Tool; HRQoL, health‐related quality of life; KSADS, Kiddie Schedule for Affective Disorders and Schizophrenia; M.I.N.I. Plus, Mini‐International Neuropsychiatric Interview; MDI, Mental Development Index; Movement ABC‐2, Movement Assessment Battery for Children—Second edition; Movement ABC, Movement Assessment Battery for Children; MRI, magnetic resonance imaging; MRS, magnetic resonance spectroscopy; NTNU, Norwegian University of Science and Technology; PASAT, Paced Auditory Serial Addition Test; PBI, Parental Bonding Instrument; PDI‐21, The 21‐item Peters et al. Delusions Inventory; PDI, Psychomotor Development Index; PDMS, Peabody Developmental Motor Scales; PF, Parent Form; SCL‐90‐R, Symptom Checklist‐90‐Revised; SDQ, Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire; SF‐36, Short Form 36 Health Survey; SPPA‐R, Self‐Perception Profile for Adolescents—Revised; Stroop, Stroop Color and Word Test; TBSS, Tract‐based spatial statistics; TMT, Trail Making Test; TRACULA, TRActs Constrained by UnderLying Anatomy; TRF, Teacher Report Form; VMI‐IV, Beery‐Buktenica Developmental Test of Visual‐Motor Integration—Fourth edition; VMI‐V, Beery‐Buktenica Developmental Test of Visual‐Motor Integration— Fifth edition; WAIS‐III, Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale—Third edition; WCST, Wisconsin Card Sorting Test; WISC‐III, Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children—Third edition; WMS‐III, Wechsler Memory Scale—Third edition; WPPSI‐R, Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence—Revised; YSR, Youth Self‐Report.
Phillips Gyroscan S 15.
Siemens Magneton Symphony Sonata.
Criticare 507 N.
Siemens Trio.
21‐channel Mitsar EEG system.
Siemens Skyra.
Hologic Discovery A S/N 83817.
3.1. Outcomes of body functions and structures
3.1.1. Brain
There were consistent findings of brain structure pathology from 1–6 years, 20 where the proportions ranged from 29.6% for focal white matter lesions to 77.7% for more diffuse white matter deviations in the VLBW group. 17 , 21 At 15 years, the proportion with brain structure pathology was substantially higher (Figure 3), 22 and cortical surface area and brain structure volume smaller in the VLBW compared with the control group (Table 2). 23 Also at 20 years, volumes were smaller in the VLBW group. 24 Cortical thickness and surface area decreased correspondingly in both groups from 15 to 20 years. 25 White matter integrity was poorer in the corpus callosum, thalamus, cingulum, internal capsule, occipital white matter and the major white matter tracts in the VLBW group at 15 26 and 20 years. 27
FIGURE 3.

Proportions of adverse outcomes reported in articles of the NTNU Low Birth Weight in a Lifetime Perspective study in the VLBW (solid bars) and control group (shaded bars) according to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. Abbreviations: NTNU, Norwegian University of Science and Technology; SD, standard deviation; VLBW, very low birthweight
TABLE 2.
Mean values (SD) of outcomes reported in articles of the NTNU Low Birth Weight in a Lifetime Perspective study according to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health
| Citation | Number (% male) | Age in years (SD) | Outcome | Mean (SD) | SD difference | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| VLBW | Control | VLBW | Control | VLBW | Control | |||||
| Body functions and structures | ||||||||||
| Brain | ||||||||||
| Martinussen et al. 2005 23 | 50 (52) | 58 (38) | 15.2 (0.6) | 15.5 (0.5) | Cortical surface area right hemisphere (cm2) | 815 | (96) | 885 | (81) | −0.86 |
| Cortical surface area left hemisphere (cm2) | 814 | (96) | 879 | (81) | −0.80 | |||||
| Cortical thickness right hemisphere (mm) | 2.13 | (0.09) | 2.16 | (0.09) | −0.33 | |||||
| Cortical thickness left hemisphere (mm) | 2.13 | (0.09) | 2.17 | (0.09) | −0.44 | |||||
| Cortical volume right hemisphere (cm3) | 173 | (21) | 191 | (20) | −0.90 | |||||
| Cortical volume left hemisphere (cm3) | 174 | (22) | 190 | (20) | −0.80 | |||||
| Martinussen et al. 2009 30 | 50 (52) | 57 (39) | 15.2 (0.6) | 15.5 (0.5) | Total intracranial volume (cm3) | 1470 | (163) | 1548 | (118) | −0.66 |
| Cerebral grey matter volume (cm3) | 592 | (70) | 626 | (56) | −0.61 | |||||
| Cerebral white matter volume (cm3) | 380 | (64) | 413 | (43) | −0.77 | |||||
| Hippocampus volume (cm3) | 7.7 | (0.9) | 8.3 | (0.8) | −0.75 | |||||
| Amygdale volume (cm3) | 3.3 | (0.4) | 3.5 | (0.3) | −0.67 | |||||
| Thalamus volume (cm3) | 16 | (2.3) | 19 | (1.5) | −2.00 | |||||
| Cerebellar grey matter volume (cm3) | 118 | (13) | 124 | (11) | −0.55 | |||||
| Cerebellar white matter volume (cm3) | 22 | (3.6) | 25 | (3.0) | −1.00 | |||||
| Skranes et al. 2012 50 | 49 (51) | 58 (40) | 15.1 (0.6) | 15.3 (0.5) | Thickness entorhinal cortex left hemisphere (mm) | 2.39 | (0.27) | 2.63 | (0.28) | −0.86 |
| Thickness entorhinal cortex right hemisphere (mm) | 2.36 | (0.29) | 2.56 | (0.34) | −0.59 | |||||
| Botellero et al. 2016 69 | 44 (41) | 60 (42) | 19 years 7 months | 19 years 8 months | Cerebellar white matter (ml) | 26.60 | (4.03) | 29.83 | (3.10) | −1.04 |
| (7 months) | (6 months) | Cerebellar grey matter (ml) | 96.59 | (11.14) | 103.57 | (8.85) | −0.79 | |||
| Botellero et al. 2017 70 | 44 (41) | 60 (42) | 19 years 7 months | 19 years 8 months | Cingulum (ml) | 20.64 | (3.16) | 23.07 | (2.79) | −0.87 |
| (7 months) | (6 months) | Frontal cortex (ml) | 117.39 | (28.83) | 190.93 | (16.94) | −4.34 | |||
| Insula (ml) | 12.79 | (2.25) | 13.83 | (1.39) | −0.75 | |||||
| Occipital cortex (ml) | 46.79 | (6.66) | 49.08 | (4.52) | −0.51 | |||||
| Parietal cortex (ml) | 110.68 | (14.41) | 124.54 | (11.04) | −1.26 | |||||
| Temporal cortex (ml) | 107.64 | (16.65) | 120.15 | (11.65) | −1.07 | |||||
| Thalamus (ml) | 13.24 | (1.81) | 15.30 | (1.32) | −1.56 | |||||
| Subcortical grey matter (ml) | 44.12 | (5.03) | 48.22 | (3.96) | −1.04 | |||||
| Vangberg et al. 2006 26 | 34 (47) | 47 (38) | 15.2 (0.7) | 15.5 (0.5) | FA Posterior limb of internal capsule left hemisphere | 0.28 | (0.03) | 0.31 | (0.02) | −1.50 |
| FA Posterior limb of internal capsule right hemisphere | 0.36 | (0.07) | 0.46 | (0.05) | −2.00 | |||||
| FA Thalamus left hemisphere | 0.27 | (0.04) | 0.32 | (0.03) | −1.67 | |||||
| FA Thalamus right hemisphere | 0.28 | (0.04) | 0.34 | (0.03) | −2.00 | |||||
| FA Cingulum left hemisphere | 0.36 | (0.08) | 0.48 | (0.07) | −1.71 | |||||
| FA Cingulum right hemisphere | 0.46 | (0.08) | 0.56 | (0.05) | −2.00 | |||||
| FA Corpus callosum (splenium) left hemisphere | 0.44 | (0.12) | 0.57 | (0.07) | −1.86 | |||||
| FA Corpus callosum (splenium) right hemisphere | 0.57 | (0.10) | 0.69 | (0.06) | −2.00 | |||||
| FA Corpus callosum (genu) left hemisphere | 0.60 | (0.07) | 0.64 | (0.06) | −0.67 | |||||
| FA Corpus callosum (genu) right hemisphere | 0.54 | (0.07) | 0.59 | (0.05) | −1.00 | |||||
| FA Occipital white matter left hemisphere | 0.40 | (0.07) | 0.46 | (0.05) | −1.20 | |||||
| FA Occipital white matter right hemisphere | 0.42 | (0.07) | 0.47 | (0.06) | −0.83 | |||||
| FA Superior longitudinal fasciculus left hemisphere | 0.26 | (0.04) | 0.32 | (0.06) | −1.00 | |||||
| FA Superior longitudinal fasciculus right hemisphere | 0.28 | (0.06) | 0.35 | (0.06) | −1.17 | |||||
| FA Arcuate fasciculus left hemisphere | 0.27 | (0.06) | 0.35 | (0.07) | −1.14 | |||||
| FA Arcuate fasciculus right hemisphere | 0.34 | (0.06) | 0.39 | (0.05) | −1.00 | |||||
| Eikenes et al. 2011 27 | 49 (41) | 59 (37) | 20.2 (0.8) | 20.3 (0.5) | FA Corpus callosum (genu) left hemisphere | 0.64 | (0.06) | 0.66 | (0.04) | −0.50 |
| FA Corpus callosum (genu) right hemisphere | 0.64 | (0.07) | 0.67 | (0.05) | −0.60 | |||||
| FA Corpus callosum (splenium) left hemisphere | 0.74 | (0.07) | 0.78 | (0.03) | −1.33 | |||||
| FA Corpus callosum (splenium) right hemisphere | 0.72 | (0.07) | 0.76 | (0.02) | −2.00 | |||||
| FA Corpus callosum (body) | 0.64 | (0.06) | 0.68 | (0.04) | −1.00 | |||||
| FA External capsule left hemisphere | 0.35 | (0.03) | 0.37 | (0.03) | −0.67 | |||||
| FA External capsule right hemisphere | 0.36 | (0.03) | 0.38 | (0.02) | −1.00 | |||||
| FA Superior longitudinal fasciculus left hemisphere | 0.34 | (0.02) | 0.38 | (0.02) | −2.00 | |||||
| FA Superior longitudinal fasciculus right hemisphere | 0.35 | (0.03) | 0.38 | (0.03) | −1.00 | |||||
| FA Fornix body | 0.31 | (0.07) | 0.37 | (0.04) | −1.50 | |||||
| FA Fornix left hemisphere | 0.39 | (0.03) | 0.42 | (0.02) | −1.50 | |||||
| FA Fornix right hemisphere | 0.40 | (0.03) | 0.43 | (0.02) | −1.50 | |||||
| FA Cingulum left hemisphere | 0.30 | (0.06) | 0.34 | (0.05) | −0.80 | |||||
| FA Cingulum right hemisphere | 0.29 | (0.05) | 0.32 | (0.05) | −0.60 | |||||
| Hollund et al. 2018 67 | 31 (35) | 31 (42) | 22.5 (0.7) | 22.7 (0.7) | FA CST Noncrossing fibres dominant hand area | 0.575 | (0.038) | 0.589 | (0.030) | −0.47 |
| FA CST Crossing fibres dominant hand area | 0.430 | (0.040) | 0.413 | (0.030) | 0.57 | |||||
| FA CST Noncrossing fibres nondominant hand area | 0.572 | (0.037) | 0.596 | (0.037) | −0.65 | |||||
| FA CST Crossing fibres nondominant hand area | 0.440 | (0.039) | 0.423 | (0.025) | 0.68 | |||||
| FA CST Noncrossing fibres dominant foot area | 0.584 | (0.039) | 0.600 | (0.033) | −0.48 | |||||
| FA CST Crossing fibres dominant foot area | 0.459 | (0.045) | 0.443 | (0.030) | 0.53 | |||||
| FA CST Noncrossing fibres nondominant foot area | 0.587 | (0.040) | 0.609 | (0.031) | −0.71 | |||||
| FA CST Crossing fibres nondominant foot area | 0.468 | (0.043) | 0.442 | (0.026) | 1.00 | |||||
| FA CST Noncrossing fibres dominant premotor area | 0.552 | (0.040) | 0.568 | (0.031) | −0.52 | |||||
| FA CST Crossing fibres dominant premotor area | 0.428 | (0.027) | 0.418 | (0.024) | 0.42 | |||||
| FA CST Noncrossing fibres nondominant premotor area | 0.544 | (0.033) | 0.544 | (0.042) | 0.00 | |||||
| FA CST Crossing fibres nondominant premotor area | 0.434 | (0.025) | 0.424 | (0.019) | 0.53 | |||||
| FA CC Noncrossing fibres motor area | 0.448 | (0.049) | 0.469 | (0.039) | −0.54 | |||||
| FA CC Crossing fibres motor area | 0.492 | (0.042) | 0.499 | (0.284) | −0.02 | |||||
| FA CC Noncrossing fibres premotor area | 0.495 | (0.030) | 0.495 | (0.037) | 0.00 | |||||
| FA CC Crossing fibres premotor area | 0.444 | (0.034) | 0.488 | (0.032) | −1.38 | |||||
| Cognition | ||||||||||
| Lærum et al. 2019 19 | 21 (n/r) | 75 (n/r) | 5 (n/r) | 5 (n/r) | Full scale IQ | 94.9 | (16.6) | 108.0 | (12.7) | −1.03 |
| Kulseng et al. 2006 29 | 54 (n/r) | 83 (n/r) | 14.1 (0.3) | 14.2 (0.3) | Knox Cube (trial 1) | 12.8 | (2.3) | 13.9 | (2.0) | −0.55 |
| Knox Cube (trial 2) | 12.1 | (2.5) | 13.6 | (1.9) | −0.79 | |||||
| CPT Hit reaction time | 355.9 | (74.5) | 328.4 | (46.5) | 0.59 | |||||
| Stroop Color names | 21.9 | (13.5) | 18.3 | (3.3) | 1.09 | |||||
| Stroop Colors of rectangles | 30.0 | (13.8) | 23.9 | (4.5) | 1.36 | |||||
| Stroop Interference | 58.7 | (24.9) | 50.5 | (11.4) | 0.72 | |||||
| TMT A | 19.1 | (7.8) | 15.4 | (6.1) | 0.61 | |||||
| TMT B | 46.7 | (22.0) | 31.9 | (18.6) | 0.80 | |||||
| WCST Errors of preservation | 18.7 | (11.5) | 12.3 | (8.1) | 0.79 | |||||
| WCST Nonperseverative errors | 23.9 | (15.7) | 14.8 | (10.2) | 0.89 | |||||
| Estimated total IQ (2 subtests) | 86.4 | (19.9) | 97.1 | (14.3) | −0.75 | |||||
| Martinussen et al. 2009 30 | 50 (52) | 57 (39) | 15.2 (0.6) | 15.5 (0.5) | Estimated verbal IQ | 82 | (19) | 93 | (16) | −0.69 |
| Estimated performance IQ | 81 | (28) | 101 | (19) | −1.05 | |||||
| VMI‐IV | 20 | (4) | 23 | (3) | −1.00 | |||||
| VMI‐IV motor coordination | 21 | (3) | 24 | (2) | −1.50 | |||||
| VMI‐IV visual perception | 23 | (4) | 25 | (3) | −0.67 | |||||
| Løhaugen et al. 2010 28 | 55 (55) | 81 (52) | 19 years 2 months | 19 years 2 months | Full scale IQ | 88 | (13) | 101 | (12) | −1.08 |
| (11 months) | (8 months) | Verbal IQ | 87 | (11) | 98 | (12) | −0.92 | |||
| Performance IQ | 91 | (16) | 104 | (12) | −1.08 | |||||
| Sripada et al. 2015 31 | 47 (43) | 56 (38) | 19.7 (0.9) | 19.7 (0.6) | VMI‐V | 24.6 | (3.6) | 26.7 | (2.4) | −0.87 |
| VMI‐V Motor coordination | 27.4 | (2.7) | 29.2 | (1.8) | −1.00 | |||||
| VMI‐V Visual perception | 27.6 | (2.0) | 27.9 | (2.3) | −0.13 | |||||
| Aasen et al. 2016 84 | 30 (40) | 33 (45) | 22.0 (0.8) | 22.1 (0.8) | Adapted cued go/no‐go task Reaction time | 355.8 | (44.2) | 348.0 | (40.9) | 0.19 |
| Adapted cued go/no‐go task SD of reaction time | 81.44 | (24.4) | 75.58 | (21.4) | 0.27 | |||||
| Adapted cued go/no‐go task Omission | 3.40 | (4.3) | 1.42 | (1.6) | 1.24 | |||||
| Adapted cued go/no‐go task Commission | 0.87 | (1.5) | 0.64 | (1.0) | 0.23 | |||||
| Mental health | ||||||||||
| Indredavik et al. 2004 34 | 56 (54) | 83 (42) | 14.1 (0.3) | 14.2 (0.3) | ADHD‐R Attention score (teacher‐report) | 7.1 | (6.0) | 3.8 | (5.9) | 0.56 |
| ADHD‐R Hyperactivity score (teacher‐report) | 2.7 | (4.4) | 2.1 | (4.4) | 0.14 | |||||
| ADHD‐R Total score (teacher‐report) | 9.8 | (9.0) | 5.9 | (10.0) | 0.39 | |||||
| ASSQ Sum score | 5.5 | (5.9) | 2.0 | (2.7) | 1.30 | |||||
| Indredavik et al. 2005 38 | 56 (54) | 83 (42) | 14.1 (n/r) | 14.2 (n/r) | ASEBA YSR Internalising problems | 6.9 | (5.5) | 7.3 | (5.9) | −0.07 |
| ASEBA YSR Externalising problems | 7.4 | (4.8) | 8.2 | (5.6) | −0.14 | |||||
| ASEBA YSR Total problems | 23.8 | (15.0) | 24.9 | (15.6) | −0.07 | |||||
| ASEBA CBCL Internalising problems (mother‐report) | 6.2 | (6.0) | 3.3 | (3.7) | 0.78 | |||||
| ASEBA CBCL Externalising problems (mother‐report) | 5.5 | (8.4) | 2.4 | (2.9) | 1.07 | |||||
| ASEBA CBCL Total problems (mother‐report) | 19.2 | (16.3) | 8.7 | (8.3) | 1.27 | |||||
| ASEBA TRF Internalising problems | 7.3 | (7.2) | 2.9 | (3.3) | 1.33 | |||||
| ASEBA TRF Externalising problems | 4.2 | (5.8) | 3.7 | (7.2) | 0.07 | |||||
| ASEBA TRF Total problems | 22.1 | (18.0) | 12.3 | (16.9) | 0.58 | |||||
| SDQ Total difficulties (self‐report) | 8.1 | (5.0) | 7.5 | (4.9) | 0.12 | |||||
| SDQ Total difficulties (mother‐report) | 8.6 | (6.5) | 3.4 | (2.9) | 1.79 | |||||
| SDQ Total difficulties (teacher‐report) | 7.1 | (4.9) | 4.1 | (4.2) | 0.71 | |||||
| Lund et al. 2012 39 | 43 (40) | 74 (42) | 19.5 (0.6) | 19.7 (0.5) | ASEBA ASR Internalising problems | 11.6 | (10.7) | 7.4 | (7.3) | 0.58 |
| ASEBA ASR Externalising problems | 7.7 | (6.1) | 6.7 | (5.9) | 0.17 | |||||
| ASEBA ASR Total problems | 35.5 | (24.4) | 27.8 | (20.8) | 0.37 | |||||
| AQ Total score | 15.4 | (4.6) | 13.1 | (5.1) | 0.45 | |||||
| Husby et al. 2016 53 | 35 (40) | 37 (41) | 22.5 (0.7) | 22.7 (0.6) | ASEBA ASR Critical items | 4.6 | (3.4) | 2.8 | (2.7) | 0.67 |
| ASEBA ASR Internalising problems | 12.9 | (9.4) | 8.6 | (7.7) | 0.56 | |||||
| ASEBA ASR Externalising problems | 8.3 | (6.0) | 6.6 | (5.7) | 0.30 | |||||
| ASEBA ASR Total problems | 38.6 | (21.7) | 29.0 | (18.6) | 0.52 | |||||
|
Lærum et al. 2019 19 |
61 (54) | 88 (43) | 26.4 (0.7) | 26.5 (0.5) | ASEBA ASR Critical items | 3.3 | (3.5) | 1.8 | (2.0) | 0.75 |
| ASEBA ASR Internalising problems | 11.8 | (10.8) | 7.1 | (6.7) | 0.70 | |||||
| ASEBA ASR Externalising problems | 6.8 | (6.6) | 3.9 | (4.0) | 0.73 | |||||
| ASEBA ASR Total problems | 34.0 | (24.5) | 21.6 | (17.4) | 0.71 | |||||
| AQ Sum score | 15.5 | (6.3) | 12.3 | (5.3) | 0.60 | |||||
| PDI‐21 Grand Total | 15.7 | (21.2) | 11.3 | (16.5) | 0.27 | |||||
| Vision | ||||||||||
| Lindqvist et al. 2007 40 | 51 (55) | 77 (42) | 14.5 (0.4) | 14.6 (0.5) | Distance visual acuity (best correction), both eyes | 1.17 | (0.27) | 1.30 | (0.19) | −0.68 |
| Near visual acuity (best correction), both eyes | 0.91 | (0.27) | 1.02 | (0.24) | −0.46 | |||||
| Pain | ||||||||||
| Iversen et al. 2018 43 | 51 (49) | 86 (44) | 28.3 | 28.5 | Upper cool detection threshold (°C) | 1.3 | (0.5) | 1.4 | (0.7) | −0.14 |
| (range | (range | Lower cool detection threshold (°C) | 2.6 | (1.5) | 2.5 | (1.0) | 0.10 | |||
| 27.3–29.9) | 27.6–29.7) | Upper warmth detection threshold (°C) | 2.5 | (1.0) | 2.3 | (0.8) | 0.25 | |||
| Lower warmth detection threshold (°C) | 5.5 | (3.1) | 5.1 | (2.6) | 0.15 | |||||
| Upper cold pain threshold (°C) | 17.0 | (8.1) | 18.1 | (7.9) | −0.14 | |||||
| Lower cold pain threshold (°C) | 19.4 | (7.6) | 20.2 | (7.8) | −0.10 | |||||
| Upper heat pain threshold (°C) | 12.8 | (3.7) | 13.4 | (3.5) | −0.17 | |||||
| Lower heat pain threshold (°C) | 14.1 | (3.2) | 14.1 | (2.7) | 0.00 | |||||
| Upper pressure pain threshold (kPa) | 949 | (231) | 985 | (215) | −0.17 | |||||
| Lower pressure pain threshold (kPa) | 719 | (229) | 751 | (203) | −0.16 | |||||
| Physical health | ||||||||||
| Evensen et al. 2004 44 | 54 (54) | 83 (42) | 14.1 (0.3) | 14.2 (0.3) | Head circumference (cm) | 54.3 | (1.9) | 55.9 | (1.5) | −1.07 |
| Height (cm) | 161 | (9.3) | 167 | (7.6) | −0.79 | |||||
| Weight (kg) | 49.9 | (12.1) | 56.8 | (10.7) | −0.64 | |||||
| Body mass index (kg/m 2 ) | 19.1 | (3.9) | 20.2 | (3.0) | −0.37 | |||||
|
Husby et al. 2013 49 |
36 (42) | 37 (41) | 22.5 (0.7) | 22.7 (0.6) | Head circumference (cm) | 56.0 | (1.8) | 57.4 | (1.7) | −0.82 |
| Height (cm) | 168.8 | (9.4) | 173.2 | (10.7) | −0.41 | |||||
| Weight (kg) | 66.6 | (14.0) | 73.5 | (15.7) | −0.44 | |||||
| Body mass index (kg/m2) | 23.3 | (4.2) | 24.4 | (3.8) | −0.29 | |||||
| Balasuriya et al. 2018 46 | 55 (49) | 75 (47) | 26.4 (0.6) | 26.5 (0.4) | Weight (kg) | 72.8 | (16.2) | 75.9 | (15.4) | −0.20 |
| Body mass index (kg/m2) | 24.7 | (5.1) | 24.6 | (4.3) | 0.02 | |||||
| Waist circumference (cm) | 86.2 | (12.0) | 84.9 | (11.2) | 0.12 | |||||
| Body fat (%) | 25.0 | (9.2) | 23.8 | (7.8) | 0.15 | |||||
| Systolic blood pressure (mmHg) | 125.7 | (13.3) | 119.3 | (12.3) | 0.52 | |||||
| Diastolic blood pressure (mmHg) | 71.9 | (7.6) | 68.6 | (7.1) | 0.46 | |||||
| Fasting glucose mmol/L | 5.00 | (0.44) | 4.92 | (0.39) | 0.21 | |||||
| HbA1c (%) | 5.21 | (0.26) | 5.09 | (0.27) | 0.44 | |||||
| Insulin sensitivity (HOMA2‐IS) | 70.9 | (25.9) | 86.0 | (35.4) | −0.43 | |||||
| Total cholesterol | 4.24 | (0.85) | 4.17 | (0.81) | 0.09 | |||||
| Metabolic syndrome score | 186 | (17) | 179 | (17) | 0.41 | |||||
| Activities and participation | ||||||||||
| Motor skills | ||||||||||
| Evensen et al. 2009 48 | 23 (52); | 71 (45); | 12.3 months | 13.3 months | BSID PDI 1 years | 100.3 | (17.5) | 108.9 | (12.0) | −0.72 |
| 25 (64) | 73 (47) | (0.3 months); | (0.6 months); | PDMS Eye/hand coordination 5 years | 79.0 | (5.6) | 80.7 | (3.3) | −0.52 | |
| 5.8 (0.3) | 5.3 (0.3) | PDMS Balance 5 years | 56.8 | (5.4) | 59.1 | (4.3) | −0.53 | |||
| PDMS Locomotor 5 years | 100.6 | (11.5) | 105.9 | (5.4) | −0.98 | |||||
| Evensen et al. 2004 44 | 54 (54) | 83 (42) | 14.1 (0.3) | 14.2 (0.3) | Movement ABC Manual dexterity | 2.5 | (2.9) | 1.2 | (1.6) | 0.81 |
| Movement ABC Ball skills | 2.7 | (2.5) | 1.6 | (1.9) | 0.58 | |||||
| Movement ABC Static/dynamic balance | 5.7 | (4.0) | 3.5 | (2.9) | 0.76 | |||||
| Movement ABC Total score | 11.0 | (7.8) | 6.3 | (4.4) | 1.07 | |||||
| Skranes et al. 2012 50 | 49 (51) | 58 (40) | 14.2 (0.3) | 14.2 (0.3) | GP Dominant hand (s) | 79.8 | (48) | 65.1 | (8) | 1.84 |
| GP Nondominant hand (s) | 89.7 | (43) | 73.5 | (11) | 1.47 | |||||
| Husby et al. 2013 49 | 36 (42) | 37 (41) | 22.5 (0.7) | 22.7 (0.6) | GP Dominant hand (s) | 70.7 | (19.0) | 62.2 | (9.5) | 0.89 |
| GP Nondominant hand (s) | 80.6 | (35.1) | 68.3 | (10.6) | 1.16 | |||||
| TMT 5 Motor speed (s) | 28.6 | (10.8) | 19.9 | (5.6) | 1.55 | |||||
| Movement ABC‐2 Manual dexterity | 24.5 | (8.6) | 28.2 | (5.4) | −0.69 | |||||
| Movement ABC‐2 Aiming and catching | 17.1 | (5.0) | 19.3 | (4.6) | −0.48 | |||||
| Movement ABC‐2 Balance | 28.1 | (9.4) | 32.6 | (3.9) | −1.15 | |||||
| Movement ABC‐2 Total score | 69.7 | (20.2) | 80.2 | (8.7) | −1.21 | |||||
| HiMAT 8‐item score | 26.0 | (6.1) | 29.3 | (2.5) | −1.32 | |||||
| HiMAT Total score | 44.9 | (7.9) | 49.6 | (3.4) | −1.38 | |||||
| Physical activity | ||||||||||
| Balasuriya et al. 2018 46 | 55 (49) | 75 (47) | 26.4 (0.6) | 26.5 (0.4) | Daily physical activity (min) | 18 | (22) | 29 | (26) | −0.42 |
| Average exercise intensity (Borg's rating scale) | 13.0 | (6.4) | 15.0 | (4.9) | −0.41 | |||||
| General and social functioning | ||||||||||
| Indredavik et al. 2004 34 | 56 (54) | 83 (42) | 14.1 (0.3) | 14.2 (0.3) | CGAS score | 72.8 | (16.5) | 85.3 | (8.2) | −1.52 |
| Lund et al. 2011 35 | 44 (39) | 75 (43) | 19.5 (0.6) | 19.7 (0.5) | CGAS score | 76 | (14) | 86 | (8) | −1.25 |
| Lærum et al. 2017 36 | 44 (48) | 81 (47) | 26.3 (0.7) | 26.5 (0.5) | GAF Function score | 78.5 | (18.4) | 87.4 | (8.7) | −1.02 |
| GAF Symptom score | 79.3 | (16.1) | 86.4 | (10.3) | −0.69 | |||||
| Indredavik et al. 2005 38 | 56 (54) | 83 (42) | 14.1 (n/r) | 14.2 (n/r) | ASEBA YSR Social | 6.3 | (1.8) | 7.5 | (1.4) | −0.86 |
| ASEBA CBCL Social (mother‐report) | 6.0 | (2.2) | 7.3 | (1.5) | −0.87 | |||||
|
Lund et al. 2012 39 |
43 (40) | 74 (42) | 19.5 (0.6) | 19.7 (0.5) | SPPA‐R Athletic competence | 2.3 | (0.7) | 2.8 | (0.6) | −0.83 |
| SPPA‐R Physical appearance | 2.8 | (0.8) | 2.8 | (0.7) | 0.00 | |||||
| SPPA‐R Social acceptance | 3.4 | (0.5) | 3.5 | (0.4) | −0.25 | |||||
| SPPA‐R Romantic appeal | 2.7 | (0.6) | 2.9 | (0.5) | −0.40 | |||||
| SPPA‐R Close friends | 3.4 | (0.6) | 3.6 | (0.4) | −0.50 | |||||
| SPPA‐R Global self‐worth | 3.1 | (0.8) | 3.1 | (0.5) | 0.00 | |||||
| ASEBA ASR Friends | 10.3 | (1.7) | 11.1 | (1.1) | −0.73 | |||||
| Husby et al. 2016 53 | 35 (40) | 37 (41) | 22.5 (0.7) | 22.7 (0.6) | ASEBA ASR Friends | 10.0 | (2.1) | 10.8 | (1.4) | −0.57 |
| Education | ||||||||||
| Indredavik et al. 2005 38 | 56 (54) | 83 (42) | 14.1 (n/r) | 14.2 (n/r) | ASEBA YSR Academic performance | 1.7 | (0.6) | 2.2 | (0.4) | −1.25 |
| ASEBA CBCL Academic performance (mother‐report) | 1.8 | (0.7) | 2.2 | (0.4) | −1.00 | |||||
| ASEBA TRF Academic performance | 2.8 | (0.8) | 3.3 | (0.6) | −0.83 | |||||
| Lund et al. 2012 39 | 43 (40) | 74 (42) | 19.5 (0.6) | 19.7 (0.5) | SPPA‐R School competence | 2.9 | (0.6) | 3.0 | (0.6) | −0.17 |
| Health‐related quality of life | ||||||||||
| Indredavik et al. 2005 52 | 56 (54) | 83 (42) | 14.1 (0.3) | 14.2 (0.3) | CHQ‐CF Global health | 77.6 | (21.3) | 82.0 | (17.9) | −0.25 |
| CHQ‐PF Global health | 81.8 | (15.5) | 86.7 | (17.1) | −0.29 | |||||
| CHQ‐PF Physical health sum | 48.2 | (13.4) | 50.2 | (9.4) | −0.21 | |||||
| CHQ‐PF Psychosocial health sum | 40.2 | (17.0) | 50.8 | (7.6) | −1.39 | |||||
|
Lund et al. 2012 39 |
43 (40) | 74 (42) | 19.5 (0.6) | 19.7 (0.5) | SF‐36 Physical functioning | 90.2 | (20.4) | 95.5 | (10.1) | −0.52 |
| SF‐36 Role‐physical | 89.0 | (19.1) | 91.1 | (22.2) | −0.09 | |||||
| SF‐36 Bodily pain | 80.2 | (22.6) | 80.2 | (22.5) | 0.00 | |||||
| SF‐36 Social functioning | 91.0 | (12.6) | 92.6 | (13.1) | −0.12 | |||||
| SF‐36 Role emotional | 87.6 | (24.2) | 90.9 | (23.7) | −0.14 | |||||
| SF‐36 Vitality | 50.1 | (19.1) | 56.2 | (14.2) | −0.43 | |||||
| SF‐36 General health | 79.3 | (17.8) | 78.7 | (19.8) | 0.03 | |||||
| SF‐36 Mental health | 73.6 | (15.0) | 79.2 | (11.9) | −0.47 | |||||
| Husby et al. 2016 53 | 35 (40) | 37 (41) | 22.5 (0.7) | 22.7 (0.6) | SF‐36 Physical functioning | 90.4 | (13.6) | 96.6 | (5.9) | −1.05 |
| SF‐36 Role‐physical | 80.0 | (30.8) | 96.4 | (10.7) | −1.53 | |||||
| SF‐36 Bodily pain | 68.7 | (28.3) | 82.0 | (18.3) | −0.73 | |||||
| SF‐36 Social functioning | 86.1 | (16.5) | 94.3 | (13.3) | −0.62 | |||||
| SF‐36 Role emotional | 78.1 | (33.3) | 95.2 | (20.0) | −0.86 | |||||
| SF‐36 Vitality | 49.2 | (14.2) | 54.9 | (13.2) | −0.43 | |||||
| SF‐36 General health | 72.1 | (18.9) | 66.8 | (20.0) | 0.27 | |||||
| SF‐36 Mental health | 70.6 | (16.8) | 77.4 | (13.2) | −0.52 | |||||
| SF‐36 Physical component summary | 47.8 | (5.9) | 51.2 | (4.1) | −0.83 | |||||
| SF‐36 Mental component summary | 45.2 | (8.4) | 49.7 | (6.4) | −0.70 | |||||
Abbreviations: ADHD‐R, Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder Rating Scale—Fourth edition; AQ, autism spectrum quotient; ASEBA, Achenbach System of Empirically Based Assessment; ASR, Adult Self‐Report; ASSQ, Autism Spectrum Screening Questionnaire; BSID, Bayley Scales of Infant Development; CBCL, child behaviour checklist; CC, corpus callosum; CF, child form; CGAS, Children's Global Assessment Scale; CHQ, Child Health Questionnaire; CPT, Conners Continuous Performance Test; CST, corticospinal tract; FA, fractional anisotropy; GAF: Global Assessment of Functioning; GP, Grooved Pegboard; HiMAT, High‐Level Mobility Assessment Tool; IQ, intelligence quotient; Movement ABC, Movement Assessment Battery for Children; Movement ABC‐2, Movement Assessment Battery for Children—Second edition; n/r, no report; NTNU, Norwegian University of Science and Technology; PDI, Psychomotor Development Index; PDI‐21, Peters et al. Delusions Inventory; PDMS, Peabody Developmental Motor Scales; PF, Parent Form; SD, standard deviation; SDQ, Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire; SF‐36, Short Form 36 Health Survey; SPPA‐R, Self‐Perception Profile for Adolescents—Revised; Stroop, Stroop Color and Word Test; TMT, Trail Making Test; TRF, Teacher Report Form; VLBW, very low birthweight; VMI‐IV, Berry‐Buktenica Developmental Test of Visual‐Motor Integration—Fourth edition; VMI‐V, Beery‐Buktenica Developmental Test of Visual‐Motor Integration—Fifth edition; WCST, Wisconsin Card Sorting Test; YSR, Youth Self‐Report.
3.1.2. Cognition
At 5, 14 and 19 years, full IQ, verbal and performance IQ were lower in the VLBW compared with the control group (Table 2). 19 , 28 , 29 , 30 An IQ <1SD of the control group mean was seen in about half of the VLBW participants, and IQ <70 was found only in the VLBW group (Figure 3). 28 Poor performance (<2SD) on at least one attention or executive function test was found in three of four VLBW participants at 14 years. 29 Visual‐motor integration was poorer at 14 30 and 19 years 31 compared with controls. Memory, attention and executive function test scores were lower in the VLBW than in the control group at 19 years. 32 , 33
3.1.3. Mental health
Using structured clinical interviews, the proportion of psychiatric disorders was higher in the VLBW group at 14, 34 19 35 and 26 years 36 compared with the control group (Figure 3). High psychiatric morbidity increased from 14 to 19 years 37 and further to 26 years. 36 Anxiety disorders were most prevalent across the ages, 34 , 35 , 36 and mood disorders and body dysmorphic disorder were also present at 26 years. 36 On screening questionnaires, more mental health problems in the VLBW group were reported by mothers and teachers at 14 years (Table 2), 38 and more internalising problems among VLBW participants compared with controls by self‐report at 19 years. 39 At 26 years, a higher proportion reported borderline/clinical mental health problems in the VLBW than in the control group (Figure 3). 19 Higher attention screening scores were reported by teachers at 14 years for the VLBW compared with the control group, 34 and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder was diagnosed more often at 19 years. 35 Screening for autism spectrum traits showed a higher parent‐reported sum score at 14 years, 34 and self‐reported autism spectrum quotient scores were higher at 19 39 and 26 years 19 compared with controls (Table 2 and Figure 3).
3.1.4. Vision
Near and distance visual acuity were poorer among VLBW participants at 14 years compared with controls (Table 2). 40 A higher proportion of VLBW adolescents than controls had poor distance visual acuity and abnormal contrast sensitivity (Figure 3). 40 Poor stereopsis and convergence, latent or manifest strabismus and nystagmus were all more frequent in the VLBW than in the control group. 41 None of the children had received treatment for retinopathy of prematurity. 40
3.1.5. Pain
More VLBW participants reported moderate to very severe pain in the past four weeks compared with controls at 19 and 26 years. 42 The prevalence did not increase between these two ages, 42 neither did the prevalence of chronic pain from 26 to 28 years. 43
3.1.6. Physical health
The VLBW adolescents were shorter and lighter than controls, but their body mass index did not differ. 44 , 45 Examination of pulmonary function and cardiorespiratory fitness at 18 years showed that forced expiratory volume and maximal oxygen uptake were lower, and systolic blood pressure higher, in the VLBW group compared with controls. 45 At 26 years, both systolic and diastolic blood pressure were higher in the VLBW group (Table 2). 46 At this age, the proportions of VLBW participants with osteopenia and osteoporosis were higher than among controls (Figure 3). 47 Mean bone mineral content and density 47 and insulin sensitivity were lower, while HbA1c and insulin resistance were higher in the VLBW group. 46
3.1.7. Neuromusculoskeletal and movement‐related functions
At 14 years of age, 11% of the participating VLBW adolescents had cerebral palsy compared with none of the controls (Figure 3). 44
3.2. Outcomes of activities and participation
3.2.1. Motor skills
Proportions of motor problems were higher (Figure 3) and scores on the standardised motor tests poorer (Table 2) in the VLBW than in the control group at 1, 5 and 14 years. 44 , 48 This was evident in both total test scores and subscores of manual dexterity, ball skills and balance scores at 14 44 and 23 years. 49 Motor problems at 14 years were predicted by low motor scores at 1 and 5 years, 48 and the proportion of participants with motor problems did not change between 14 and 23 years. 49 Scores on the Grooved Pegboard with both dominant and non‐dominant hand were poorer in VLBW adolescents 50 and young adults. 49 At 23 years, the VLBW participants also had poorer performance in more advanced gross motor skills. 49
3.2.2. Physical activity
At 26 years, VLBW participants reported less physical activity and exercise intensity than controls (Table 2). 46
3.2.3. General and social functioning
At 14 years, the odds of having suboptimal general functioning, i.e. scores <80 on the Children's Global Assessment Scale, were almost eight times increased in the VLBW compared with the control group, 34 and the odds of being bullied were six times increased. 51 Scores of general functioning were lower at 14, 19 and 26 years (Table 2). 34 , 35 , 36
The VLBW adolescents and their mothers reported lower social competence at 14 years 38 and lower friends score at 19 years 39 compared with controls. At this age, they also reported lower self‐esteem for athletic competence. 39
3.2.4. Education and employment
At 14 years, one‐third of the VLBW adolescents received special educational services at school and lower scores for academic performance were reported by the adolescents themselves, their mothers and teachers. 38 Almost half of the 19‐year‐old VLBW participants, twice as many as the controls, were in vocational education and training instead of higher education. 28 At 26 years, fewer VLBW than control participants had completed high school and one‐fifth of the VLBW participants were unemployed or received disability benefits (Figure 3). 36
3.2.5. Health‐related quality of life
At 14 years, there were no group differences in self‐reported global health, while the parents reported lower psychosocial health for the VLBW adolescents compared with controls. 52 At 19 years, the VLBW group reported poorer mental health‐related quality of life. 39 Moreover, up to 23 years, both physical and mental health‐related quality of life declined in the VLBW group. 53
3.3. Risk factors and associations between outcomes
3.3.1. Personal and environmental factors
In the VLBW group, lower birthweight and/or gestational age were associated with brain structure pathology at 1 year, 54 smaller brain volumes 23 , 24 , 30 , 32 and cortical surface area 23 , 55 at 15 and 20 years and poorer white matter integrity at 20 years (Table 3). 27 Furthermore, lower birthweight and/or gestational age were associated with lower IQ at 19 years, 28 poorer performance on a functional MRI task of adaptive control at 23 years, 56 higher systolic and diastolic blood pressure and metabolic syndrome score at 26 years, 46 and more psychiatric diagnoses and symptoms at 14 57 and 26 years. 19 Perinatal morbidity was associated with brain structure pathology at 1 year, 54 brain volumes at 15 years, 24 , 30 , 32 cortical surface area at 15 23 and 20 years, 55 white matter integrity at 20 years, 27 IQ 28 and neuropsychological test scores 33 at 19 years, psychiatric problems at 14 years, 57 self‐reported mental health problems at 26 years, 19 and pain scores at 28 years. 43
TABLE 3.
Risk factors for adverse outcomes and associations between outcomes in the preterm VLBW group reported in articles of the NTNU Low Birth Weight in a Lifetime Perspective study according to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health
| Body functions and structures | Activities and participation | |||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Brain | Cognition | Mental health | Physical health | Pain | Motor skills | General and social functioning, HRQoL | ||||||||||||||||
| MRI pathology | Volume | Surface area | FA | MRS | DL | IQ | WMS‐III | PASAT | Not X‐CPT | BRIEF‐A | KSADS | ASEBA ASR | SDQ | Bone quality | BP/Metabolic | PDMS | Movement ABC | Special education | Bullied | SF‐36 | ||
| Contextual factors | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| Personal factors | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| BW | 1 year 54 |
15 years 23 20 years 55 |
20 years 27 | 19 years 28 | 19 years 32 | 14 years 57 | ||||||||||||||||
| GA | 1 year 54 |
15 years 23 20 years 26 |
20 years 55 | 20 years 27 | 23 years 56 | 14 years 57 | 26 years 19 | 26 years 46 | ||||||||||||||
| Apgar score | 1 year 54 | 19 years 33 | 14 years 57 | |||||||||||||||||||
| Days to BW regain | 15 years 30 | 15 years 23 | ||||||||||||||||||||
| IVH | 26 years 19 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Days on ventilator | 1 year 54 | 20 years 24 | 15 years 23 | 20 years 27 | 19 years 32 | 26 years 19 | 28 years 43 | |||||||||||||||
| Days in NICU | 20 years 24 , 32 | 20 years 55 | 20 years 27 | 19 years 28 | 19 years 32 | 26 years 19 | 28 years 43 | |||||||||||||||
| Sex | 26 years 46 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Environmental factors | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| Parental SES | 19 years 35 | 14 years 38 | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Body functions and structures | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| Brain | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| MRI pathology | 1–6 years 20 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Volume | 15–20 years 24 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Surface area | 15–20 years 25 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Cognition | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| BSID MDI | 1 years 54 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| IQ | 6 years 21 |
20 years 24 |
15 years 59 20 years 27 |
15 years 60 | 14 years 66 | 23 years 56 | 14 years 51 | |||||||||||||||
| Attention | 19 years 33 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Executive function | 19 years 33 | 19 years 33 | ||||||||||||||||||||
| WCST | 15 years 62 | 15 years 23 | 15 years 63 | 15 years 60 | ||||||||||||||||||
| WMS‐III | 20 years 32 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Stroop | 15 years 62 | 14 years 66 | 19 years 83 | |||||||||||||||||||
| TMT 2–4 | 19 years 83 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| CPT | 14 years 66 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| VMI‐IV/V | 15 years 30 |
15 years 50 20 years 31 |
15 years 59 20 years 31 |
15 years 60 | ||||||||||||||||||
| Mental health | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| KSADS | 14‐19 years 37 | 14 years 38 | 14 years 38 | |||||||||||||||||||
| M.I.N.I. Plus | 14–19‐26 years 36 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| ADHD‐R | 15 years 65 | 15 years 59 | 14 years 66 | 14 years 51 | ||||||||||||||||||
| ASSQ | 14 years 51 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| ASEBA ASR | 23 years 56 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Vision | 15 years 64 | 14 years 68 | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Pain |
19‐26 years 42 26‐28 years 43 |
|||||||||||||||||||||
| Physical health | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| Anthropometry | 1‐15 years 23 | 1‐15 years 23 | 1‐6 years 58 | 0‐14 years 57 | 1‐26 years 47 | 1‐6 years 58 | 14 years 44 | |||||||||||||||
| Metabolic syndrome | 26 years 46 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Activities and participation | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| Motor skills | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| BSID PDI | 1 years 54 | 1‐14 years 48 | ||||||||||||||||||||
| DDST Gross | 1 years 54 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| PDMS | 6 years 21 , 58 | 5‐14 years 48 | ||||||||||||||||||||
| GP | 15 years 50 |
15 years 59 23 years 67 |
23 years 53 | |||||||||||||||||||
| TMT 5 | 23 years 53 | 23 years 53 | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Movement ABC |
15 years 59 23 years 67 |
14‐23 years 49 | 14 years 51 | 23 years 53 | ||||||||||||||||||
| HiMAT | 23 years 53 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| General and social functioning, HRQoL | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| CGAS | 15 years 59 | 15 years 60 | ||||||||||||||||||||
| SF‐36 | 20‐23 years 5 | |||||||||||||||||||||
Abbreviations: ADHD‐R, Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder Rating Scale—Fourth edition; ASEBA, Achenbach System of Empirically Based Assessment; ASR, Adult Self‐Report; ASSQ, Autism Spectrum Screening Questionnaire; BP, blood pressure; BRIEF‐A, Behaviour Rating Inventory of Executive Function—Adult version; BSID, Bayley Scales of Infant Development; BW, birthweight; CGAS, Children's Global Assessment Scale; CPT, Conners Continuous Performance Test; DDST, Denver Developmental Screening Test; DL, dichotic listening; FA, fractional anisotropy; GA, gestational age; GP, Grooved Pegboard; HiMAT, High‐Level Mobility Assessment Tool; HRQoL, health‐related quality of life; IQ, intelligence quotient; IVH, intraventricular hemorrhage; KSADS, Kiddie Schedule for Affective Disorders and Schizophrenia; M.I.N.I. Plus, Mini‐International Neuropsychiatric Interview; MDI, Mental Development Index; Movement ABC, Movement Assessment Battery for Children; MRI, magnetic resonance imaging; MRS, magnetic resonance spectroscopy; NICU, neonatal intensive care unit; NTNU, Norwegian University of Science and Technology; PASAT, Paced Auditory Serial Addition Test; PDI, Psychomotor Development Index; PDMS, Peabody Developmental Motor Scales; SDQ, Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire; SES, socioeconomic status; SF‐36, Short Form 36 Health Survey; Stroop, Stroop Color and Word Test; TMT, Trail Making Test; VLBW, very low birthweight; VMI‐IV, Beery‐Buktenica Developmental Test of Visual‐Motor Integration—Fourth edition; VMI‐V, Beery‐Buktenica Developmental Test of Visual‐Motor Integration—Fifth edition; WCST, Wisconsin Card Sorting Test; WMS‐III, Wechsler Memory Scale—Third edition.
Grey shaded areas indicate significant associations.
In the control group, more boys than girls had symptoms of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, 34 attention and externalising problems, 38 but this was not the case in the VLBW group. At 26 years, VLBW males were shorter than control males, 47 while systolic and diastolic blood pressure were higher and lean body mass lower in VLBW females than in control females. 46
At 14 years, adjustment for parental SES both increased and decreased the odds of having total mental health problems reported by mothers and fathers, respectively, 38 and at 19 years, decreased the odds for psychiatric morbidity. 35 Parents of VLBW adolescents experienced increased emotional burden, but they did not have more mental health problems than others. 52 Parental mental health was not associated with the VLBW participants having a psychiatric disorder at 26 years. 36
3.3.2. Body functions and structures
Smaller head circumference at 1 year was associated with smaller brain volume and surface area, 23 and psychiatric problems 57 at 14–15 years. Both smaller head circumference and lower body weight at 1 year were associated with lower IQ at 6 years. 58 Weight gain at 1 year correlated with bone mineral content and density at 26 years 47 and metabolic syndrome score were associated with bone mineral density at 26 years. 46
Lower cognitive scores were associated with brain structure pathology at 1 year. 54 IQ was associated with brain structure pathology at 6 years, 21 brain volumes, 23 , 30 surface area, 23 , 50 white matter integrity 59 and spectroscopy findings 60 at 15 years, and brain volumes, 24 surface area 55 , 61 and white matter integrity 27 at 20 years. Furthermore, poorer performance on several neuropsychological tests was associated with brain structure pathology, 62 smaller brain volumes 30 , 32 and surface area, 31 , 33 , 50 poorer white matter integrity 31 , 59 , 63 and spectroscopy findings 60 at 15 and 20 years. Poorer white matter integrity of corpus callosum and frontal white matter areas were associated with lower visual acuity at 15 years. 64
Symptoms of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder were associated with brain structure pathology, 65 white matter integrity 59 and dichotic listening scores 66 at 14–15 years. At 23 years, self‐reported anxiety problems and poorer mental health were associated with performance on a functional MRI task of adaptive control 56 and lower motor speed. 53
3.3.3. Activities and participation
Motor test scores were associated with brain structure pathology at 1 54 and 6 years, 21 , 58 surface area at 15 years, 50 and white matter integrity at 15 59 and 23 years. 67 Smaller head circumference and lower body weight at 1 year predicted lower motor scores at 6 years, 58 while higher weight in adolescence was associated with poorer motor scores at 14 years. 44 Motor problems were partly explained by visual impairments at 14 years. 68
General functioning was associated with white matter integrity 59 and spectroscopy findings at 15 years 60 and brain volumes at 15 and 19 years. 69 , 70 Special education was associated with lower scores on attention and executive function tests at 19 years. 33 Higher odds of being bullied were associated with low IQ, motor problems, symptoms of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and autism spectrum traits at 14 years, 51 and health‐related quality of life was associated with motor scores at 23 years. 53
4. COMMENT
4.1. Principal findings
In this systematic review, we used the ICF framework to report neuroimaging findings and clinical outcomes of the NTNU LBW Life study from childhood through adolescence and into young adult age. Within Body functions and structures, we found that preterm born VLBW adolescents had an increased risk of abnormal cerebral MRI findings and poorer cognitive function, mental and physical health. Within Activities and participation, we have documented challenges in motor skills, general and social functioning, and education and employment, across adolescence and young adulthood, including declining health‐related quality of life from adolescence through the twenties. Lower birthweight and gestational age, and perinatal morbidity were risk factors for adverse outcomes.
4.2. Strengths of the study
The main strength of this systematic review is the synthesis of a prospective longitudinal multidisciplinary follow‐up of a defined study population over three decades, assessing a broad spectrum of health. The literature search was carried out in two databases and records were screened independently by two authors, one without prior knowledge of the NTNU LBW Life study (KADA). Included articles were published in international peer‐reviewed journals. Neuroimaging was performed with state‐of‐the‐art methods, psychiatric diagnoses were set by clinicians using acknowledged semi‐structured interviews, and standardised clinical assessment tools were age‐appropriate and consistent with current recommendations. 71 The use of ICF as a framework developed to provide a broad perspective of health and interrelated functions, 16 draws attention to other aspects of functioning than just a narrow bodily perspective.
4.3. Limitations of the data
Within the ICF, it may be difficult to separate outcomes and make them fit into components and domains. This is demonstrated in ICF linkage studies, where health‐status measurements, such as the Short Form 36 Health Survey, may cover different ICF components. 18 Nevertheless, this approach brings attention to the biopsychosocial model of health 16 and the interrelationship of different outcomes.
The NTNU LBW Life study comprised a control group of non‐small for gestational age (non‐SGA) children, which may indicate a better functioning control group than the general population. However, the estimates of cognition, motor skills and psychiatric morbidity suggest that the control group is representative of the general population. 28 , 34 , 44 Other well‐known birth cohort studies, such as the Helsinki Study of Very Low Birth Weight Adults, have also used a control group of non‐SGA children. 72
Loss to follow‐up is inevitable in any long‐term study, and follow‐up rates of 50–80% have been suggested as acceptable in cohort studies. 73 As previous publications have documented that there were no differences in maternal and perinatal factors or clinical characteristics between participants and non‐participants, 28 , 34 , 48 we consider the sample at each follow‐up timepoint to be representative of the initial cohort. Although the relatively small cohort size is a limitation, the statistical power was sufficient to detect group differences with reliability.
4.4. Interpretation
4.4.1. Body functions and structures
The brain is extensively examined in preterm cohorts, 2 but longitudinal neuroimaging studies combined with clinical assessments from childhood into adulthood are few. The frequency of abnormal MRI findings was consistently higher in the preterm born VLBW group than in the term born control group across ages, and structural grey matter pathology and abnormal white matter connectivity were associated with cognitive and neuropsychological deficits, motor problems and symptoms of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, indicating specific brain structure–function relationships.
The preterm born VLBW participants had about 13 points lower IQ than controls at 19 years. Using individual participant data of eight cohorts from two consortia (Research on European Children and Adults Born Preterm [RECAP Preterm] and Adults Born Preterm International Collaboration [APIC]), Eves et al. 4 found that very preterm/VLBW participants (n = 1068) had 0.78SD lower mean IQ scores than term‐born participants (n = 1067) at mean age 24 years, equivalent to a difference of 12 IQ points. Further, our findings of poorer performance on several neuropsychological tests in adolescence and young adulthood are supported by a review of Saigal et al. 13 stating that cognitive deficits and problems with executive functioning persist to adulthood in very preterm survivors.
Increased psychiatric morbidity from 14 years to 19 and 26 years is in line with two comprehensive meta‐analyses in the APIC consortium, showing long‐term consequences of being born preterm with VLBW into adulthood, especially internalising problems, 5 anxiety and mood disorders, attention deficit hyperactivity and autism spectrum disorders. 6 The increased risk of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder is also supported by a recent publication that includes register data from Finland. 74 A large multinational cohort study using data from several Nordic registers has documented an increased risk of autism spectrum disorder for each week of decreasing gestation from week 40 to week 24. 75
Our finding of reduced expiratory airflow of the lungs is confirmed by a meta‐analysis of individual participant data in the APIC consortium, where the mean difference was −0.78SD between the very preterm/VLBW (n = 935) and control participants (n = 722). 8 Also the blood pressure findings were confirmed by larger data in the APIC consortium, where systolic blood pressure was 3.4 mmHg higher in VLBW adults (n = 1571) compared with controls (n = 777), and even higher for females and those exposed to maternal preeclampsia. 7 Results on decreased bone mineral density 76 and increased insulin resistance 72 from the Finnish studies are also in line with the results from the NTNU LBW Life study.
4.4.2. Activities and participation
Motor test scores were generally 1.0SD poorer in the preterm VLBW group across ages, which is consistent with a recent review. 9 A meta‐analysis of studies using the Bayley Scales of Infant Development and the Movement Assessment Battery for Children found effect size differences of −0.88SD and − 0.65SD between children born very preterm/VLBW and controls. 10 Another meta‐analysis found a 6‐fold increase of motor problems in very preterm/VLBW children, 11 well in line with the estimate of the NTNU LBW Life study.
Measures of general and social functioning showed that several aspects of life were affected by preterm birth. In a broad overview of adult outcomes of very preterm/VLBW survivors, using data from both cohort and registry‐linkage studies, the authors conclude that adults born preterm are more likely to remain single and that reproduction is diminished. 13 In a meta‐analysis, adults born preterm were found to be less likely to experience romantic relationships, sexual intercourse, or to become parents, but the quality of relationships with partners and friends was not impaired. 77
Educational level was consistently lower in the preterm born VLBW group than in the control group, which adds to the literature on adult functioning and societal consequences of being born preterm with VLBW. Saigal et al. 13 found that most studies reported lower educational attainment, lower income and higher requirements for social assistance, particularly among those with neurodevelopmental disabilities. Furthermore, self‐reported health‐related quality of life was lower for very preterm/VLBW individuals compared with full term counterparts, 13 whereas a systematic review of 18 studies of 15 cohorts reported no conclusive evidence of the lower health‐related quality of life among very preterm/VLBW adults. 78
4.4.3. Underlying mechanisms
The broad spectrum of problems across various ICF domains, ranging from abnormal MRI findings, cognitive, mental and motor problems, to lower general and social functioning, and lower health‐related quality of life, suggest a common aetiology that probably involves a combination of and an interplay between genetic, antenatal and postnatal risk factors. 79 Being born preterm with VLBW has major immediate and long‐term consequences for immature organ systems, particularly the brain and lungs, causing neurodevelopmental problems and impaired cardiorespiratory function, which may persist to adulthood. Presently, emerging evidence suggests that perinatal inflammation causing white matter damage is likely to be a contributor to adverse neurodevelopmental outcomes, including cerebral palsy, cognitive impairment, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and autism spectrum disorder. 80 However, a broad array of antecedents and correlates may be involved, ranging from maternal and foetal infections and postnatal morbidity to socioeconomic disadvantage and environmental exposures, with genetic polymorphism and epigenetic changes involved in the cascade of mechanisms. 80 The long‐term follow‐up provides a well‐documented description of the preterm VLBW phenotype and its association to neuroimaging findings, to be examined in relation to such underlying aetiological factors.
4.4.4. Clinical implications
A substantial part of the included articles addressed body functions and structures as their main outcome, although several publications reported more than one outcome and associations with domains within activities and participation. The combination of quantitative neuroimaging and multidisciplinary assessments gave the opportunity to investigate structure–function relationships in the preterm brain that had not been reported earlier. This has contributed to a better understanding of how aberrant early development of the preterm brain may have lasting functional consequences. However, activities and participation may be the most important outcomes for the individuals themselves. In this systematic review, we emphasise that being born preterm with VLBW may lead to a complexity of outcomes. Studies have traditionally focused on body functions and structures, and we encourage more research on outcomes within activities and participation. Similar to results in other studies, 3 , 4 , 9 , 10 , 12 lower birthweight and gestational age, and perinatal morbidity were associated with several adverse consequences and may be used to identify preterm born children most likely to experience problems in adulthood. The broad spectrum of outcomes across body functions and structures, and activities and participation brings an important message to clinicians; the diversity of challenges should be covered in multidisciplinary follow‐up. An overall view in line with the ICF components may open for novel approaches in the management of preterm born VLBW individuals.
5. CONCLUSIONS
This systematic review demonstrates the long‐lasting complexity of challenges for preterm born VLBW individuals, involving the brain, cognition, mental and physical health, motor skills, general and social functioning, education and employment, as well as health‐related quality of life. This preterm born cohort with VLBW, followed from birth to young adulthood, did not outgrow the biological risk, and the various domains of ICF were all affected. Importantly, some of these domains should be possible to influence through either intervention or adaptation and could therefore be a target for management, aiming to promote well‐being and quality of life through the years of growth.
Supporting information
Table S1
Table S2
Table S3
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We would like to thank all participants, former PhD students and researchers for their contribution to the NTNU Low Birth Weight in a Lifetime Perspective study. We thank Head librarian Katrine Aronsen, NTNU University Library, for valuable guidance in the literature search and MSc Silje Dahl Benum, Department of Clinical and Molecular Medicine, NTNU, for organising the included articles and for helping with the figures.
Evensen KAI, Aakvik KAD, Hollund IMH, Skranes J, Brubakk A‐M, Indredavik MS. Multidisciplinary and neuroimaging findings in preterm born very low birthweight individuals from birth to 28 years of age: A systematic review of a Norwegian prospective cohort study. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 2022;36:606‐630. doi: 10.1111/ppe.12890
Funding information
The work of Evensen, Aakvik, Hollund and Indredavik was supported by funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Program: Research on European Children and Adults born Preterm (RECAP Preterm), grant no 733280. Evensen and Aakvik received funding from the Joint Research Committee between St. Olavs Hospital HF and the Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), project no 46055600‐159. Indredavik received funding from the Research Council of Norway, grant no 283791. The funding agencies had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish or preparation of the manuscript.
DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
Data sharing not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.
REFERENCES
- 1. Sullivan MC, Lynch E, Msall ME. Late adolescent & young adult functioning and participation outcomes after prematurity. Semin Fetal Neonatal Med. 2020;25:101118. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2. Volpe JJ. Brain injury in premature infants: a complex amalgam of destructive and developmental disturbances. The Lancet Neurology. 2009;8:110‐124. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3. Aarnoudse‐Moens CSH, Weisglas‐Kuperus N, van Goudoever JB, Oosterlaan J. Meta‐analysis of neurobehavioral outcomes in very preterm and/or very low birth weight children. Pediatrics. 2009;124:717‐728. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4. Eves R, Mendonça M, Baumann N, et al. Association of Very Preterm Birth or very low birth weight with intelligence in adulthood: an individual participant data meta‐analysis. JAMA Pediatr. 2021;175:e211058. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5. Pyhälä R, Wolford E, Kautiainen H, et al. Self‐reported mental health problems among adults born preterm: a meta‐analysis. Pediatrics. 2017;139:e20162690. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6. Anderson PJ, de Miranda DM, Albuquerque MR, et al. Psychiatric disorders in individuals born very preterm/very low‐birth weight: an individual participant data (IPD) meta‐analysis. EClinicalMedicine. 2021;42:101216. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7. Hovi P, Vohr B, Ment LR, et al. Blood pressure in young adults born at very low birth weight: adults born preterm international collaboration. Hypertension. 2016;68:880‐887. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8. Doyle LW, Andersson S, Bush A, et al. Expiratory airflow in late adolescence and early adulthood in individuals born very preterm or with very low birthweight compared with controls born at term or with normal birthweight: a meta‐analysis of individual participant data. Lancet Respir Med. 2019;7:677‐686. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9. Evensen KAI, Ustad T, Tikanmäki M, Haaramo P, Kajantie E. Long‐term motor outcomes of very preterm and/or very low birth weight individuals without cerebral palsy: a review of the current evidence. Semin Fetal Neonatal Med. 2020;25:101116. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10. 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;302:2235‐2242. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11. Edwards J, Berube M, Erlandson K, et al. Developmental coordination disorder in school‐aged children born very preterm and/or at very low birth weight: a systematic review. J Dev Behav Pediatr. 2011;32:678‐687. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12. Ni Y, Mendonça M, Baumann N, et al. Social functioning in adults born very preterm: individual participant meta‐analysis. Pediatrics. 2021;148:e2021051986. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13. Saigal S, Morrison K, Schmidt LA. Health, wealth and achievements of former very premature infants in adult life. Semin Fetal Neonatal Med. 2020;25:101107. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14. Moster D, Lie RT, Markestad T. Long‐term medical and social consequences of preterm birth. N Engl J Med. 2008;359:262‐273. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15. Raju TNK, Pemberton VL, Saigal S, Blaisdell CJ, Moxey‐Mims M, Buist S. Long‐term healthcare outcomes of preterm birth: an executive summary of a conference sponsored by the National Institutes of Health. J Pediatr. 2017;181:309‐318.e1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16. World Health Organization . International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. WHO; 2001. [Google Scholar]
- 17. Skranes JS, Nilsen G, Smevik O, Vik T, Rinck P, Brubakk AM. Cerebral magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of very low birth weight infants at one year of corrected age. Pediatr Radiol. 1992;22:406‐409. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18. Cieza A, Brockow T, Ewert T, et al. Linking health‐status measurements to the international classification of functioning, disability and health. J Rehabil Med. 2002;34:205‐210. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19. Lærum AMW, Reitan SK, Evensen KAI, et al. Psychiatric symptoms and risk factors in adults born preterm with very low birthweight or born small for gestational age at term. BMC Psychiatry. 2019;19:223. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20. Skranes JS, Nilsen G, Smevik O, Vik T, Brubakk AM. Cerebral MRI of very low birth weight children at 6 years of age compared with the findings at 1 year. Pediatr Radiol. 1998;28:471‐475. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21. Skranes JS, Vik T, Nilsen G, Smevik O, Andersson HW, Brubakk AM. Cerebral magnetic resonance imaging and mental and motor function of very low birth weight children at six years of age. Neuropediatrics. 1997;28:149‐154. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22. Skranes JS, Martinussen M, Smevik O, et al. Cerebral MRI findings in very‐low‐birth‐weight and small‐for‐gestational‐age children at 15 years of age. Pediatr Radiol. 2005;35:758‐765. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23. Martinussen M, Fischl B, Larsson HB, et al. Cerebral cortex thickness in 15‐year‐old adolescents with low birth weight measured by an automated MRI‐based method. Brain. 2005;128:2588‐2596. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24. Bjuland KJ, Rimol LM, Løhaugen GCC, Skranes J. Brain volumes and cognitive function in very‐low‐birth‐weight (VLBW) young adults. Eur J Paediatr Neurol. 2014;18:578‐590. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25. Rimol LM, Bjuland KJ, Løhaugen GCC, et al. Cortical trajectories during adolescence in preterm born teenagers with very low birthweight. Cortex. 2016;75:120‐131. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26. Vangberg TR, Skranes J, Dale AM, Martinussen M, Brubakk AM, Haraldseth O. Changes in white matter diffusion anisotropy in adolescents born prematurely. Neuroimage. 2006;32:1538‐1548. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27. Eikenes L, Løhaugen GC, Brubakk AM, Skranes J, Håberg AK. Young adults born preterm with very low birth weight demonstrate widespread white matter alterations on brain DTI. Neuroimage. 2011;54:1774‐1785. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28. Løhaugen GC, Gramstad A, Evensen KA, et al. Cognitive profile in young adults born preterm at very low birthweight. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2010;52:1133‐1138. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29. Kulseng S, Jennekens‐Schinkel A, Næss P, et al. Very‐low‐birthweight and term small‐for‐gestational‐age adolescents: attention revisited. Acta Paediatr. 2006;95:224‐230. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30. Martinussen M, Flanders DW, Fischl B, et al. Segmental brain volumes and cognitive and perceptual correlates in 15‐year‐old adolescents with low birth weight. J Pediatr. 2009;155:848‐853.e1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31. Sripada K, Løhaugen GC, Eikenes L, et al. Visual‐motor deficits relate to altered gray and white matter in young adults born preterm with very low birth weight. Neuroimage. 2015;109:493‐504. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32. Aanes S, Bjuland KJ, Skranes J, Løhaugen GCC. Memory function and hippocampal volumes in preterm born very‐low‐birth‐weight (VLBW) young adults. Neuroimage. 2015;105:76‐83. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33. Østgård HF, Sølsnes AE, Bjuland KJ, et al. Executive function relates to surface area of frontal and temporal cortex in very‐low‐birth‐weight late teenagers. Early Hum Dev. 2016;95:47‐53. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34. Indredavik MS, Vik T, Heyerdahl S, Kulseng S, Fayers P, Brubakk AM. Psychiatric symptoms and disorders in adolescents with low birth weight. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2004;89:F445‐F450. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35. Lund LK, Vik T, Skranes J, Brubakk AM, Indredavik MS. Psychiatric morbidity in two low birth weight groups assessed by diagnostic interview in young adulthood. Acta Paediatr. 2011;100:598‐604. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36. Lærum AM, Reitan SK, Evensen KA, et al. Psychiatric disorders and general functioning in low birth weight adults: a longitudinal study. Pediatrics. 2017;139:e20162135. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37. Lund LK, Vik T, Skranes J, Lydersen S, Brubakk AM, Indredavik MS. Low birth weight and psychiatric morbidity; stability and change between adolescence and young adulthood. Early Hum Dev. 2012;88:623‐629. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38. Indredavik MS, Vik T, Heyerdahl S, Kulseng S, Brubakk AM. Psychiatric symptoms in low birth weight adolescents, assessed by screening questionnaires. Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2005;14:226‐236. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39. Lund LK, Vik T, Lydersen S, et al. Mental health, quality of life and social relations in young adults born with low birth weight. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2012;10:146. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 40. Lindqvist S, Vik T, Indredavik MS, Brubakk AM. Visual acuity, contrast sensitivity, peripheral vision and refraction in low birthweight teenagers. Acta Ophthalmol Scand. 2007;85:157‐164. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 41. Lindqvist S, Vik T, Indredavik MS, Skranes J, Brubakk AM. Eye movements and binocular function in low birthweight teenagers. Acta Ophthalmol. 2008;86:265‐274. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 42. Iversen JM, Indredavik MS, Evensen KAI, Romundstad PR, Rygg M. Self‐reported chronic pain in young adults with a low birth weight. Clin J Pain. 2017;33:348‐355. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 43. Iversen JM, Uglem M, Indredavik MS, et al. Pain sensitivity and thermal detection thresholds in young adults born preterm with very low birth weight or small for gestational age at term compared with controls. J Pain. 2018;19:873‐884. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 44. 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;89:F451‐F455. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 45. Evensen KA, Steinshamn S, Tjønna AE, et al. Effects of preterm birth and fetal growth retardation on cardiovascular risk factors in young adulthood. Early Hum Dev. 2009;85:239‐245. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 46. Balasuriya CND, Stunes AK, Mosti MP, et al. Metabolic outcomes in adults born preterm with very low Birthweight or small for gestational age at term: a cohort study. J Clin Endocrinol Metabol. 2018;103:4437‐4446. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 47. Balasuriya CND, Evensen KAI, Mosti MP, et al. Peak bone mass and bone microarchitecture in adults born with low birth weight preterm or at term: a cohort study. J Clin Endocrinol Metabol. 2017;102:2491‐2500. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 48. Evensen KA, Skranes J, Brubakk AM, Vik T. Predictive value of early motor evaluation in preterm very low birth weight and term small for gestational age children. Early Hum Dev. 2009;85:511‐518. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 49. Husby IM, Skranes J, Olsen A, Brubakk AM, Evensen KA. Motor skills at 23 years of age in young adults born preterm with very low birth weight. Early Hum Dev. 2013;89:747‐754. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 50. Skranes J, Løhaugen GC, Evensen KA, et al. Entorhinal cortical thinning affects perceptual and cognitive functions in adolescents born preterm with very low birth weight (VLBW). Early Hum Dev. 2012;88:103‐109. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 51. Grindvik AS, Hodol JS, Vik T, et al. Bullying among adolescents with very low birth weight. Acta Paediatr. 2009;98:1049‐1051. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 52. Indredavik MS, Vik T, Heyerdahl S, Romundstad P, Brubakk AM. Low‐birthweight adolescents: quality of life and parent‐child relations. Acta Paediatr. 2005;94:1295‐1302. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 53. Husby IM, Stray KM, Olsen A, et al. Long‐term follow‐up of mental health, health‐related quality of life and associations with motor skills in young adults born preterm with very low birth weight. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2016;14:56. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 54. Skranes JS, Vik T, Nilsen G, et al. Cerebral magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and mental and motor function of very low birth weight infants at one year of corrected age. Neuropediatrics. 1993;24:256‐262. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 55. Bjuland KJ, Løhaugen GCC, Martinussen M, Skranes J. Cortical thickness and cognition in very‐low‐birth‐weight late teenagers. Early Hum Dev. 2013;89:371‐380. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 56. Olsen A, Dennis EL, Evensen KAI, et al. Preterm birth leads to hyper‐reactive cognitive control processing and poor white matter organization in adulthood. Neuroimage. 2018;167:419‐428. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 57. Indredavik MS, Vik T, Evensen KA, Skranes J, Taraldsen G, Brubakk AM. Perinatal risk and psychiatric outcome in adolescents born preterm with very low birth weight or term small for gestational age. J Dev Behav Pediatr. 2010;31:286‐294. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 58. Skranes J, Vik T, Nilsen G, Smevik O, Andersson HW, Brubakk AM. Can cerebral MRI at age 1 year predict motor and intellectual outcomes in very‐low‐birthweight children? Dev Med Child Neurol. 1998;40:256‐262. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 59. Skranes J, Vangberg TR, Kulseng S, Indredavik MS, Evensen K a. I, Martinussen M, et al. Clinical findings and white matter abnormalities seen on diffusion tensor imaging in adolescents with very low birth weight. Brain 2007;130:654–666. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 60. Bathen TF, Christensen Løhaugen GC, Brubakk AM, Gribbestad IS, Axelson DE, Skranes J. Combining clinical assessment scores and in vivo MR spectroscopy neurometabolites in very low birth weight adolescents. Artif Intell Med. 2009;47:135‐146. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 61. Skranes J, Løhaugen GC, Martinussen M, Håberg A, Brubakk AM, Dale AM. Cortical surface area and IQ in very‐low‐birth‐weight (VLBW) young adults. Cortex. 2013;49:2264‐2271. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 62. Skranes J, Evensen KI, Løhaugen GC, et al. Abnormal cerebral MRI findings and neuroimpairments in very low birth weight (VLBW) adolescents. Eur J Paediatr Neurol. 2008;12:273‐283. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 63. Skranes J, Løhaugen GC, Martinussen M, et al. White matter abnormalities and executive function in children with very low birth weight. Neuroreport. 2009;20:263‐266. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 64. Lindqvist S, Skranes J, Eikenes L, et al. Visual function and white matter microstructure in very‐low‐birth‐weight (VLBW) adolescents – A DTI study. Vision Res. 2011;51:2063‐2070. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 65. Indredavik MS, Skranes JS, Vik T, et al. Low‐birth‐weight adolescents: psychiatric symptoms and cerebral MRI abnormalities. Pediatr Neurol. 2005;33:259‐266. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 66. Bless JJ, Hugdahl K, Westerhausen R, et al. Cognitive control deficits in adolescents born with very low birth weight (≤1500 g): evidence from dichotic listening. Scand J Psychol. 2013;54:179‐187. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 67. Hollund IMH, Olsen A, Skranes J, et al. White matter alterations and their associations with motor function in young adults born preterm with very low birth weight. NeuroImage: Clinical. 2018;17:241‐250. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 68. Evensen KA, Lindqvist S, Indredavik MS, Skranes J, Brubakk AM, Vik T. Do visual impairments affect risk of motor problems in preterm and term low birth weight adolescents? Eur J Paediatr Neurol. 2009;13:47‐56. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 69. Botellero VL, Skranes J, Bjuland KJ, et al. Mental health and cerebellar volume during adolescence in very‐low‐birth‐weight infants: a longitudinal study. Child Adolesc Psychiatry Ment Health. 2016;10:6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 70. Botellero VL, Skranes J, Bjuland KJ, et al. A longitudinal study of associations between psychiatric symptoms and disorders and cerebral gray matter volumes in adolescents born very preterm. BMC Pediatr. 2017;17:45. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 71. Kajantie E, Johnson S, Heinonen K, et al. Common Core assessments in follow‐up studies of adults born preterm‐recommendation of the adults born preterm international collaboration. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 2021;35:371‐387. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 72. Hovi P, Andersson S, Eriksson JG, et al. Glucose regulation in young adults with very low birth weight. N Engl J Med. 2007;356:2053‐2063. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 73. Fewtrell MS, Kennedy K, Singhal A, et al. How much loss to follow‐up is acceptable in long‐term randomised trials and prospective studies? Arch Dis Child. 2008;93:458‐461. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 74. Robinson R, Girchenko P, Pulakka A, et al. ADHD symptoms and diagnosis in adult preterms: systematic review, IPD meta‐analysis, and register‐linkage study. Pediatric Res. 2022. doi: 10.1038/s41390-021-01929-1 [Online ahead of print] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 75. Persson M, Opdahl S, Risnes K, et al. Gestational age and the risk of autism spectrum disorder in Sweden, Finland, and Norway: a cohort study. PLoS Med. 2020;17:e1003207. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 76. Hovi P, Andersson S, Järvenpää A‐L, et al. Decreased bone mineral density in adults born with very low birth weight: a cohort study. PLoS Med. 2009;6:e1000135. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 77. Mendonça M, Bilgin A, Wolke D. Association of Preterm Birth and low Birth Weight with Romantic Partnership, sexual intercourse, and parenthood in adulthood: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. JAMA Netw Open. 2019;2:e196961. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 78. van der Pal S, Steinhof M, Grevinga M, Wolke D, Verrips GE. Quality of life of adults born very preterm or very low birth weight: a systematic review. Acta Paediatr. 2020;109:1974‐1988. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 79. Skranes J. Is developmental coordination disorder in preterm children the motor phenotype of more widespread brain pathology? Acta Paediatr. 2019;108:1559‐1561. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 80. Oldenburg KS, O'Shea TM, Fry RC. Genetic and epigenetic factors and early life inflammation as predictors of neurodevelopmental outcomes. Semin Fetal Neonatal Med. 2020;25:101115. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 81. Bathen TF, Sjobakk TE, Skranes J, et al. Cerebral metabolite differences in adolescents with low birth weight: assessment with in vivo proton MR spectroscopy. Pediatr Radiol. 2006;36:802‐809. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 82. Evensen KA, Sigmundsson H, Romundstad P, Indredavik MS, Brubakk AM, Vik T. Inter‐ and intra‐modal matching in very low birth weight and small for gestational age adolescents. Early Hum Dev. 2007;83:19‐27. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 83. Sølsnes AE, Skranes J, Brubakk AM, Løhaugen GC. Executive functions in very‐low‐birth‐weight young adults: a comparison between self‐report and neuropsychological test results. J Int Neuropsychol Soc. 2014;20:506‐515. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 84. Aasen IE, Håberg AK, Olsen A, et al. The relevance of the irrelevant: attention and task‐set adaptation in prematurely born adults. Clin Neurophysiol. 2016;127:3225‐3233. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 85. Rimol LM, Botellero VL, Bjuland KJ, et al. Reduced white matter fractional anisotropy mediates cortical thickening in adults born preterm with very low birthweight. Neuroimage. 2019;188:217‐227. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Supplementary Materials
Table S1
Table S2
Table S3
Data Availability Statement
Data sharing not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.
