Skip to main content
NCBI home page
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2020 Apr 24;15(4):e0231947. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0231947

Long-term outcomes of survivors of neonatal insults: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Dorcas N Magai 1,2,*, Eirini Karyotaki 2, Agnes M Mutua 1, Esther Chongwo 1, Carophine Nasambu 1, Derrick Ssewanyana 1,3, Charles R Newton 1,4,5, Hans M Koot 2, Amina Abubakar 1,4,5,6
Editor: Andrew Soundy7
PMCID: PMC7182387  PMID: 32330163

Abstract

Background

The Millennium Developmental Goals ensured a significant reduction in childhood mortality. However, this reduction simultaneously raised concerns about the long-term outcomes of survivors of early childhood insults. This systematic review focuses on the long-term neurocognitive and mental health outcomes of neonatal insults (NNI) survivors who are six years or older.

Methods

Two independent reviewers conducted a comprehensive search for empirical literature by combining index and free terms from the inception of the databases until 10th October 2019. We also searched for additional relevant literature from grey literature and using reference tracking. Studies were included if they: were empirical studies conducted in humans; the study participants were followed at six years of age or longer; have an explicit diagnosis of NNI, and explicitly define the outcome and impairment. Medians and interquartile range (IQR) of the proportions of survivors of the different NNI with any impairment were calculated. A random-effect model was used to explore the estimates accounted for by each impairment domain.

Results

Fifty-two studies with 94,978 participants who survived NNI were included in this systematic review. The overall prevalence of impairment in the survivors of NNI was 10.0% (95% CI 9.8–10.2). The highest prevalence of impairment was accounted for by congenital rubella (38.8%: 95% CI 18.8–60.9), congenital cytomegalovirus (23.6%: 95% CI 9.5–41.5), and hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy (23.3%: 95% CI 14.7–33.1) while neonatal jaundice has the lowest proportion (8.6%: 95% CI 2.7–17.3). The most affected domain was the neurodevelopmental domain (16.6%: 95% CI 13.6–19.8). The frequency of impairment was highest for neurodevelopmental impairment [22.0% (IQR = 9.2–24.8)] and least for school problems [0.0% (IQR = 0.0–0.00)] in any of the conditions.

Conclusion

The long-term impact of NNI is also experienced in survivors of NNI who are 6 years or older, with impairments mostly experienced in the neurodevelopmental domain. However, there are limited studies on long-term outcomes of NNI in sub-Saharan Africa despite the high burden of NNI in the region.

Trial registration

Registration number: CRD42018082119.

Introduction

Neonatal insults (NNI), defined as injury during the first 28 days of life, are associated with neonatal mortality, morbidity, and adverse neurodevelopmental outcome [1]. Globally, 5.9 million child deaths occur annually during the perinatal and neonatal periods [2, 3], accounting for 43% of deaths in children younger than 5 years of age [4]. Out of the total child-deaths that occur during this period, almost three-quarters occur in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) and South Asia [5]. As part of the Millennium Developmental Goals, there was a global commitment to reduce childhood mortality by two-thirds between 1990 to 2015 [6]. Although the target was not fully achieved, there was a significant reduction in annual childhood mortality from 12.7 million in 1990 to 5.7 million in 2015 [7]. This reduction has increased attention about the long-term outcomes that may affect the functioning and quality of life of those children who survived early childhood conditions, and especially NNI (5).

Globally, the most common NNI include sepsis, congenital meningitis, hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy (HIE), preterm birth, neonatal jaundice (NNJ), cytomegalovirus infection (CMV), herpes, congenital rubella, and toxoplasmosis [8]. Children who survive NNI are likely to develop adverse long-term outcomes such as neurocognitive impairment, developmental delay, hearing and visual impairment, cerebral palsy, and behavioral and emotional problems [9–15]. For instance, children who survived CMV were reported to develop sensorineural hearing loss and neurodevelopmental impairment [9], while congenital rubella is associated with hearing impairment [16, 17]. Intrauterine growth restriction (IUGR) is associated with neurodevelopmental impairment in the early years [12]; HIE was associated with motor and developmental delay during infancy [10], and NNJ was associated with adverse neurodevelopmental outcomes [8, 18–22].

There are few systematic reviews on the long-term outcomes of NNI. A review by Mwaniki et al. [8] included 153 studies with 22161 survivors of intrauterine insults with a follow-up period of at least 6 months and found that 39% of children who survive intrauterine or neonatal insults develop at least one long-term sequelae. The authors found that the survivors are likely to develop neurocognitive problems (cognitive impairment, developmental delays, and learning difficulties), visual and hearing impairment, and cerebral palsy. Mwaniki and colleagues also reported that congenital rubella and HIE had the highest prevalence of long-term sequelae (37% and 81% respectively) while NNJ has the lowest risk for long-term sequelae (18%).

Mwaniki et al.’s study reviewed studies with both short-term and long-term outcomes (from 6-months-old infants and older children); however, less is known about the long-term outcomes in school-aged children or older age groups globally who survived NNI [8]. As children grow older, their brains may compensate for brain injury during the neonatal period–a phenomenon termed brain plasticity [23]. Therefore NNI-associated impairments reported during early childhood may resolve as children grow older; it is, therefore, essential to identify on the residual neurodevelopmental sequelae at school-age and older age, which may persist and interfere with education, employment, and social functioning. This systematic review focuses on the long-term neurocognitive and mental health outcomes of NNI survivors who are six years or older.

Methods

Literature search

We conducted a comprehensive search for empirical literature in the following databases: PubMed, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Embase, and CINHAL. Relevant grey literature was searched in: ERIC, Open Grey, The Health Care Management Information Consortium (HMIC) database, the National Technical Information Service, and PsycEXTRA. We also used reference tracking to search for additional relevant literature. The detailed search terms (formulated by DNM and AA) comprised the index, and free terms of the different neonatal insults and the outcome measures combined with Boolean operators (“OR” and “AND”) were used each database (S1 Appendix). The literature search included studies conducted from 1947 to 10th October 2019. This systematic review is registered in PROSPERO (https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=82119); registration number CRD42018082119.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

Four reviewers (DNM, CN, EC, and AMM) independently screened the articles by titles, abstract, and full text for eligibility. Criteria for eligible studies were: i) empirical studies conducted in humans; ii) the study participants had follow-up data coinciding with the age bracket at 6 years or older (we considered children from six years as this is the age where most children join elementary school, especially in low-and-middle-income countries); iii) explicit diagnostic criteria for the neonatal insult, and iv) precise definition of the outcome and impairment (based on either a comparison to a control or a standardized test). Studies were excluded if i) it was not clear if the children had the diagnosis of NNI during the neonatal period (i.e., the first 28 days of life); ii) participants had another comorbid neural tube defect conditions, e.g. spina bifida; and iii) if the studies did not make a comparison to either a control or standardized test to define impairment in the outcomes.

Data extraction and quality assessment

Information extracted from the studies included: the author’s name and year of publication, the country where the study was conducted, the sample size, age of participants at follow-up, study design, the type of neonatal insult, the assessment tools used, the neurocognitive or mental health outcome assessed, and a general summary of the study findings (see S1 Table). Quality assessment of the studies in this review was guided by the Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS) for assessment of the quality of cohort studies [24]. This quality assessment tool assigns a maximum of four points for selection, two points for comparability, and three points for exposure or outcome. The ranking of the total scores is as follows: 0–3 for low-quality studies, 4–6 for moderate quality, and 7–9 for high-quality studies. Both data extraction and quality assessment of the studies were independently done by two reviewers (DNM and AMM). In cases where the reviewers disagreed on articles included, disagreements were resolved by reassessment of the studies, discussions, and a third reviewer where necessary.

Data analysis

Descriptive statistics such as frequencies and percentages were used to describe the outcomes in different impairment domains for each neonatal insult, the geographic distribution of studies, and the NNI reported. Medians and interquartile range (IQR) of the proportions of survivors of the different NNI with any impairment were calculated.

The outcome variable was categorized into 6 major domains of impairment: i) neurodevelopmental impairment (cognition, language, developmental delay, memory); ii) hearing impairment; iii) vision impairment; iv) neurological impairment (cerebral palsy, clinical, and motor impairment); v) epilepsy; and vi) mental/behavioral problems. The criteria for the outcomes assessed and instruments used are provided in S1 Table. The variation in effect sizes attributed to heterogeneity was explored using I2 statistic of the DerSimonian and Laird method [25]. The 95% confidence interval (95% CI) around the I2 was used to express the uncertainty associated with the I2. A random-effect model was then used—after Freeman-Turkey Double Arcsine transformation—to explore the estimates accounted for by each impairment domain. Impairment domains represented by less than 3 studies per condition were excluded from this analysis. Data were analyzed using STATA (version 15) [26].

To explore the confounding effects of follow-up periods (6–12 years, 13–18 years, and >18 years), study design (prospective vs retrospective), and region (North America, Asia, Europe, and Oceania) on the risk of impairment, a meta-regression was conducted for preterm birth only as other conditions had less than ten studies. To identify extreme findings, a visual inspection of the funnel plot was done, and Begg’s adjusted rank correlation explored.

Results

Fifty-two eligible studies (S1 Appendix) were included in this systematic review following a screening process that involved 80,038 articles (see Fig 1). Of the 52 eligible studies, 44.2% had an unexposed comparison group, while 55.8% only included an exposed group. For studies that had control groups, we report only on the case group (i.e. children who were diagnosed with NNI). More than half of the eligible studies were conducted in Europe (59.6%), 26.9% were conducted in North America, 7.7% were conducted in Asia, 5.8% were conducted in Oceania countries, and none in Africa. Most of the studies (76.9%) had a prospective study design, while 23.1% used a retrospective study design. A table with a summary of the characteristics of the studies is provided in S1 Table. The quality assessment of the 52 eligible studies indicates that 30 studies (57.7%) were categorized as “medium” quality while 22 studies (42.3%) were categorized as “high” quality (see S2 Table).

Fig 1. Flow chart showing the selection of studies on long-term outcomes of neonatal insults.

Fig 1

Open in a new tab

Overall, 94,978 survivors of NNI were included in the studies in this review. The median number of participants per study was 125 (IQR = 78.5–281.5). The median age at follow-up was 8 years (6.0 to 10.0) years. The proportion of impairment among study participants aggregated by the form of NNI is summarized in Table 1. The most examined or studied NNI were HIE (15.4%), NNJ (15.4%), and preterm birth (42.3%). The overall prevalence of impairment in the survivors of NNI was 10.0% (95% CI 9.8–10.2). The highest prevalence of impairment was accounted for by congenital rubella (38.8%: 95% CI 18.8–60.9), CMV (23.6%: 95% CI 9.5–41.5), and HIE (23.3%: 95% CI 14.7–33.1) while NNJ has the lowest proportion (8.6%: 95% CI 2.7–17.3). The most affected domain was the neurodevelopmental domain (16.6%: 95% CI 13.6–19.8). The frequency of impairment was highest for neurodevelopmental impairment [22.0% (IQR = 9.2–24.8)] and least for school problems [0.0% (IQR = 0.0–0.00)] in any of the conditions (Table 2).

Table 1. Summary of Proportion of Impairment in Survivors of Neonatal Insults.

Neonatal insult ParticipantsAssessed Impaired n (%) Type of Impairment n (%)
Neuro-develop-mental Clinical Mental Hearing Vision Motor Cerebral palsy Behavior Epilepsy School problems
Bacterial Meningitis [27] 111 41 (36.9%) 41(36.9%) - - - - - - - - -
Birth Asphyxia [28] 54 13 (24.1%) 13 (24.1%) - - - - - - - - -
CMV [29–31] 254 191 (75.2%) 57 (22.4%) - - 71 (27.9%) 21 (8.3%) 38 (15.0%) 2 (0.8%) - 2 (0.8%) -
Congenital Rubella [16, 17, 32–34] 365 322 (88.2%) 79 (21.6%) 15 (4.1%) 8 (2.2%) 108 (29.6%) 29 (7.9%) - - 83 (22.7%) - -
Fetal Growth Restriction [35–38] 2060 552 (26.8%) 194 (9.4%) - 14 (0.7%) - - - 10 (0.5%) 54 (2.6%) - 280 (13.6%)
HIE [39–46] 500 292 (58.4%) 128 (25.6%) - 70 (14.0%) 4 (0.8%) 3 (0.6%) 26(5.2%) 23(4.6%) 12 (2.4%) 26 (5.5%) -
Neonatal Jaundice [47–54] 79,356 6586 (8.3%) 6212 (7.8%) - - 374 (0.5%) - - - - - -
Preterm birth [55–76] 12,278 1531(12.5%) 1068 (8.8%) 2(0.0) 5(0.04) 6 (0.1) 108 (0.9%) 133 (1.08%) 69 (0.6%) 117(1.0%) 5 (0.1%) 3 (0.1%)
Open in a new tab

CMV- congenital Cytomegalovirus infection

Table 2. Medians and Interquartile Range (IQR) of the Proportions of Impairment in Survivors of Neonatal Insults.

Type of Impairment Overall Neonatal Insults
Bacterial Meningitis Birth Asphyxia CMV Congenital Rubella Fetal Growth Restriction HIE Neonatal Jaundice Preterm birth
Neurodevelopmental 22.0 (9.2–24.8) 36.9 (36.9–36.9) 24.1 (24.1–24.1) 27.5 (8.2–46.9) 32.7 (5.0–34.5) 26.1 (15.6–31,7) 34.1(19.8–48.1) 11.6 (0.9–19.4) 25.1 (14.1–42.0)
Clinical 0.0 (0.0–0.0) - - - 30.0 (30.0–30.0) - - - 2.2 (2.2)
Mental 0.0 (0.0–1.4) - - - 8.8 (7.5–10.0) 11.4 (11.4–11.4) 86.1 (86.1–86.1) - 5.6 (5.6–5.6)
Hearing 0.3 (0.0–13.2) - - 36.9 (15.0–58.7) 72.1 (31.5–98.0) - 3.6 (3.6–3.6) 0.5 (0.0–0.9) 6.7 (6.7–6.7)
Vision 0.3 (0.0–4.4) - - 18.6 (18.6–18.6) 29.8 (7.5–52.0) - 2.7 (2.7–2.7) - 24.6 (23.3–35.8)
Motor 2.7 (0.0–3.1) - - 33.6 (33.6–33.6) - - 25.7 (15.3–36.0) - 10.0 (8.2–22.5)
Cerebral palsy 0.8 (0.0–0.4) - - 1.8 (1-8-1.8) - 1.9 (1.9–1.9) 27.5 (23.1–32.0) - 5.5 (4.2–7.2)
Behavior 0.5 (0.0–2.5) - - - 41.0 (33.7–48.3) 10.1 (10.1–10.1) 11.6(7.3–16.0) - 19.1 (18.1–21.0)
Epilepsy 0.0 (0.0–0.4) - - 1.8 (1.8–1.8) - - 13.9 (13.5–14.3) - 5.6 (5.6–5.6)
School problems 0.0 (0.0–0.0) - - - - 14.2 (11.9–16.6) - - -
Open in a new tab

CMV- congenital Cytomegalovirus infection; HIE–Hypoxic Ischemic Encephalopathy; Entries are median (IQR).

In this meta-analysis, the highest prevalence of neurodevelopmental impairment was accounted for by HIE (31.6%: 95% CI 19.6–45.0) (Fig 2) and preterm birth (25.2%: 95% CI 15.1–36.8) (Fig 3). The prevalence of neurodevelopmental impairment in NNJ was 10.3% (95% CI 2.2–23.2) (Fig 4). Hearing impairment was most prevalent in congenital rubella (78.6: 95%CI 16.4–100.0) (Fig 5), while visual impairment was common in preterm birth (27.6%: 95% CI 20.6–35.2) (Fig 3). We conducted a subgroup analysis of 15 preterm birth studies with extremely low birth weight participants, and similar results were obtained. The least affected domains were mental health problems for fetal growth restriction (17.1%: 95% CI 12.6–22.2) (Fig 6) and neurological impairment in preterm birth (11.1%: 95% CI 6.1–17.2) (Fig 5). The meta-analysis was not possible for CMV due to the limited number of studies.

Fig 2. Individual and pooled estimates and 95% confidence intervals for random-effects model examining the long-term outcomes of fetal growth restriction.

Fig 2

Open in a new tab

I2- heterogeneity statistic; ES- effect size; %—percent; sub-groups with (I2 = . %, p = .) indicate that the number of studies were too few for the estimates to be calculated.

Fig 3. Individual and pooled estimates and 95% confidence intervals for random-effects model examining the long-term outcomes of Preterm Birth.

Fig 3

Open in a new tab

I2- heterogeneity statistic; ES- effect size; %—percent; sub-groups with (I2 = . %, p = .) indicate that the number of studies were limited for the estimates to be calculated.

Fig 4. Individual and pooled estimates and 95% confidence intervals for random-effects model examining the long-term outcomes of Neonatal Jaundice.

Fig 4

Open in a new tab

Fig 5. Individual and pooled estimates and 95% confidence intervals for random-effects model examining the long-term outcomes of Congenital Rubella.

Fig 5

Open in a new tab

I2- heterogeneity statistic; ES- effect size; %—percent; sub-groups with (I2 = . %, p = .) indicate that the number of studies were limited for the estimates to be calculated.

Fig 6. Individual and pooled estimates and 95% confidence intervals for random-effects model examining the long-term outcomes of Hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy.

Fig 6

Open in a new tab

We did not find any statistically significant results from the meta-regression of the pooled proportion of impairment in preterm birth when the predictive factors of age at follow-up, region, and study design were included in the model. The funnel plot indicated an asymmetric plot confirming publication bias. The studies also had high heterogeneity which explains the asymmetry observed in the funnel plots.

Discussion

This systematic review identified 52 studies that evaluated the long-term outcomes of NNI in school-aged children and older groups. Despite the limited data in these age groups, our study found 10% overall prevalence of impairment in survivors of NNI at age 6 years and above. The neurodevelopmental domain was the most commonly affected. Congenital rubella and HIE accounted for the highest frequency of impairment, while NNJ accounted for the least impairment.

Our findings that the neurodevelopmental domain is the most affected are similar to the results by Mwaniki and colleagues [8], however, the frequency was higher in their study (59% compared to 16.6% in the present study), and their samples comprised younger age-groups. These differences potentially demonstrate that neurodevelopmental impairment diminishes with age in most survivors due to the plasticity of the brain [8]. Another plausible reason may be that children with severe neurodevelopmental impairment did not survive to older age, thereby leading to a diminished proportion observed in older ages. It is also likely that the burden of neurodevelopmental impairment in low and middle-income resource settings like SSA may not be well represented by existing research. Moreover, not all the studies in this current review have reported on all domains of impairment; it is possible that the burden in certain domains is underestimated. There is a need for more comprehensive longitudinal studies from SSA to better characterize the impact of NNI.

Similar to the results by Mwaniki and colleagues [8], congenital rubella and HIE were associated with the most frequent adverse long-term outcomes. A possible explanation regards to the pathogenesis of these conditions. Congenital rubella, affects the systemic organs of neonates [77] and causes cell and tissue damage, and is associated with ocular, heart, and hearing impairment. In individuals affected by HIE, the blood circulation or blood flow to the brain is impaired, leading to decreased oxygen and energy to the brain. This decrease in oxygen and energy can result in brain cell death and additional scar to the white matter or neuronal cell death in severe hypoxia [78], which may result in irreversible brain damage.

Although three-quarters of child deaths occur in SSA and South Asia, many of which are related to NNI, studies in Africa that examine the long-term outcome of NNI are scarce, and none was included in this review. The lack of research in these age groups could be attributed to the lack of appropriate assessment tools, inadequate access to health-care, or lack of research expertise in this area. This is unfortunate and has serious implications as school-aged children, or older age groups who survived NNI, but live with some degree of impairment may not receive the needed care and attention. Therefore, their potential outcomes are not fully optimized; hence, they may miss required support, such as getting specialized education and continue to be marginalized.

The major strengths of this study are the use of multiple databases and a focus on long-term outcomes that are often not well studied. Additionally, the study utilized a rigorous study design for systematic reviews and meta-analysis. Lastly, the study focuses on a global perspective and further sub-categorizes the domains of impairment, making it comprehensive.

However, this study has several limitations. First, the study inclusion criteria were strict and may have omitted some studies that could be included, e.g. studies that did not include a confirmed diagnosis in the first 28 days of life (e.g., vertical HIV infection). Second, the inclusion of all children with a diagnosis of NNJ or HIE in the study without considering the severity levels might have diluted our sample.

Third, in this review, a few studies reported multi-domain impairments in the patients. For instance, many participants with cerebral palsy will also have motor impairment and learning difficulties, which we found complex to conduct subgroup analysis. Fourth, the studies included were highly heterogeneous. However, we used the random effect model, which accounted for unexplained heterogeneity observed in the studies [79]. Lastly, the results of this study should be cautiously interpreted as we found publication bias indicated by the asymmetric forest plot, which may imply that studies with statistically significant results were more likely to be published than those with non-significant results. The publication bias could also reflect the high heterogeneity in the studies included in this systematic review and meta-analysis.

These results have several implications for research and prevention strategies. The review identifies that various forms of NNI have several adverse long-term outcomes, which necessitates further management and close monitoring of survivors of NNI. Despite the improvements in neonatal care and management of birth complications to prevent child mortality, there is still need for treatment and improved care for child survivors of NNI to protect the central nervous system and prevent adverse long-term outcomes. More resources should be allocated for longer follow-ups of survivors of NNI and preventive and rehabilitative services provided to them to optimize their outcomes. Long-term follow-up research is also needed to better understand the outcomes of NNI, especially in SSA where there is a high burden of NNI, and proper medical care is limited.

Conclusion

NNI have long-term consequences that are experienced far beyond early childhood to older ages. The major impairments arising from NNI are recorded in the neurodevelopmental domains (cognition, language, developmental delay, and memory). However, this finding is based on studies from high-income countries such as Europe and America with the state of art of care for children. There are no robust studies on long-term outcomes of NNI in SSA despite the high burden of NNI in this region. Therefore, more investment of longer follow-ups of survivors of NNI is needed in SSA to optimize their outcomes fully.

Supporting information

S1 Checklist. PRISMA 2009 checklist.

(DOC)

Click here for additional data file. (64.5KB, doc)
S1 Appendix. Search terms.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file. (14.8KB, docx)
S2 Appendix. References of studies included in the review.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file. (18.8KB, docx)
S1 Table. Characteristics of studies included in the review.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file. (33.6KB, docx)
S2 Table. Assessment of quality of studies.

(XLSX)

Click here for additional data file. (12.7KB, xlsx)

Acknowledgments

We acknowledge permission from the Director of Kenya Medical Research Institute (KEMRI) to publish this work.

Data Availability

The data underlying the results presented in the study are available from https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/NPYQBL.

Funding Statement

DNM was supported through the DELTAS Africa Initiative [DEL-15-003]. The DELTAS Africa Initiative is an independent funding scheme of the African Academy of Sciences (AAS)'s Alliance for Accelerating Excellence in Science in Africa (AESA) and supported by the New Partnership for Africa's Development Planning and Coordinating Agency (NEPAD Agency) with funding from the Wellcome Trust [107769/Z/10/Z] and the UK government. The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of AAS, NEPAD Agency, Wellcome Trust, or the UK government. No funding bodies had any role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Gordon AL, English M, Tumaini Dzombo J, Karisa M, Newton CR. Neurological and developmental outcome of neonatal jaundice and sepsis in rural Kenya. Tropical Medicine & International Health. 2005;10(11):1114–20. 10.1111/j.1365-3156.2005.01496.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Haider BA, Bhutta ZA. Birth asphyxia in developing countries: current status and public health implications. Current Problems in Pediatric and Adolescent Health Care. 2006;5(36):178–88. 10.1016/j.cppeds.2005.11.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Padayachee N, Ballot DE. Outcomes of neonates with perinatal asphyxia at a tertiary academic hospital in Johannesburg, South Africa. South African Journal of Child Health. 2013;7(3):89–94. 10.7196/sajch.574 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.You D, Wardlaw T, Salama P, Jones G. Levels and trends in under-5 mortality, 1990–2008. The Lancet. 2010;375(9709):100–103. 10.1016/s0140-6736(09)61601-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Joy E lawn CS, Zulfiqar Bhutta A, Gary Darmstadt L, Jose Martines, Vinod Paul, Rudolf Knippenberg. Why are 4 million newborn babies dying each year? Lancet. 2004;364:399–401. 10.1016/S0140-6736(04)16783-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Sachs JD, McArthur JW. The millennium project: a plan for meeting the millennium development goals. The Lancet. 2005;365(9456):347–353. 10.1016/S0140-6736(05)17791-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Rajaratnam JK, Marcus JR, Flaxman AD, Wang H, Levin-Rector A, Dwyer L, et al. Neonatal, postneonatal, childhood, and under-5 mortality for 187 countries, 1970–2010: a systematic analysis of progress towards Millennium Development Goal 4. The Lancet. 2010;375(9730):1988–2008. 10.1016/S0140-6736(10)60703-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Mwaniki MK, Atieno M, Lawn JE, Newton CR. Long-term neurodevelopmental outcomes after intrauterine and neonatal insults: a systematic review. The Lancet. 2012;379(9814):445–452.d oi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(11)61577-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Bartlett AW, McMullan B, Rawlinson WD, Palasanthiran P. Hearing and neurodevelopmental outcomes for children with asymptomatic congenital cytomegalovirus infection: A systematic review. Reviews in Medical Virology. 2017;27(5). 10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2018.02.007 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Conway J, Walsh B, Boylan G, Murray D. Mild hypoxic ischaemic encephalopathy and long term neurodevelopmental outcome-A systematic review. Early Human Development. 2018;120:80–87. 10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2018.02.007 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Edmond K, Clark A, Korczak VS, Sanderson C, Griffiths UK, Rudan I. Global and regional risk of disabling sequelae from bacterial meningitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. The Lancet Infectious Diseases. 2010;10(5):317–328. 10.1016/S1473-3099(10)70048-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Levine TA, Grunau RE, McAuliffe FM, Pinnamaneni R, Foran A, Alderdice FA. Early childhood neurodevelopment after intrauterine growth restriction: a systematic review. Pediatrics. 2014;135(1) 126–141. 10.1542/peds.2014-1143 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Lopez AL, Raguindin PF, Del Rosario JJ, Najarro RV, Du E, Aldaba J, et al. The burden of congenital rubella syndrome in the Philippines: results from a retrospective assessment. Western Pacific Surveillance and Response Journal: WPSAR. 2017;8(2). 10.5365/wpsar.2017.8.1.006 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.McGuire W. Perinatal asphyxia. BMJ Clinical Evidence. 2007:15(511). [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Slusher TM, Zamora TG, Appiah D, Stanke JU, Strand MA, Lee BW, et al. Burden of severe neonatal jaundice: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Paediatrics Open. 2017;1(1). 10.1136/bmjpo-2017-000105 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.McIntosh E, Menser M. A fifty-year follow-up of congenital rubella. The Lancet. 1992;340(8816):414–5. 10.1016/0140-6736(92)91483-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Menser M, Dods L, Harley J. A twenty-five-year follow-up of congenital rubella. The Lancet. 1967;290(7530):1347–50. 10.1016/s0140-6736(67)90932-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Ogunlesi T, Dedeke I, Adekanmbi A, Fetuga M, Ogunfowora O. The incidence and outcome of bilirubin encephalopathy in Nigeria: a bi-centre study. Nigerian Journal of Medicine: Journal of the National Association of Resident Doctors of Nigeria. 2007;16(4):354–9. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Olusanya B, Akande A, Emokpae A, Olowe S. Infants with severe neonatal jaundice in Lagos, Nigeria: incidence, correlates and hearing screening outcomes. Tropical Medicine & International Health. 2009;14(3):301–10. 10.1111/j.1365-3156.2009.02223.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Owa J, Dawodu A. Neonatal jaundice among Nigerian preterm infants. West African Journal of Medicine. 1990;9(4):252–7. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Wolf M, Beunen G, Casaer P, Wolf B. Extreme hyperbilirubinaemia in Zimbabwean neonates: neurodevelopmental outcome at 4 months. European Journal of Pediatrics. 1997;156(10):803–7. 10.1007/s004310050718 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Wolf M-J, Wolf B, Beunen G, Casaer P. Neurodevelopmental outcome at 1 year in Zimbabwean neonates with extreme hyperbilirubinaemia. European Journal of Pediatrics. 1999;158(2):111–4. 10.1007/s004310051029 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Kolb B, Gibb R. Searching for the principles of brain plasticity and behavior. Cortex. 2014;58:251–60. 10.1016/j.cortex.2013.11.012 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Wells G, Shea B, O’connell D, Peterson J, Welch V, Losos M, et al. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomised studies in meta-analyses. Ottawa (ON): Ottawa Hospital Research Institute; 2009. Available in March. 2016. [Google Scholar]
  • 25.DerSimonian R, Kacker R. Random-effects model for meta-analysis of clinical trials: an update. Contemporary Clinical Trials. 2007;28(2):105–14. 10.1016/j.cct.2006.04.004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.StataCorp L. Stata statistical software, version 11. StataCorp College Station (TX): StataCorp LP; 2009. [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Stevens J, Eames M, Kent A, Halket S, Holt D, Harvey D. Long term outcome of neonatal meningitis. Archives of Disease in Childhood-Fetal and Neonatal Edition. 2003;88(3):F179–F84. 10.1136/fn.88.3.F179 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Ishikawa T, Ogawa Y, Kanayama M, Wada Y. Long-term prognosis of asphyxiated full-term neonates with CNS complications. Brain and Development. 1987;9(1):48–53. 10.1016/s0387-7604(87)80010-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Korndewal MJ, Oudesluys‐Murphy AM, Kroes AC, Van der Sande MA, De Melker HE, Vossen AC. Long‐term impairment attributable to congenital cytomegalovirus infection: a retrospective cohort study. Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology. 2017;59(12):1261–8. 10.1111/dmcn.13556 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Lanzieri TM, Chung W, Flores M, Blum P, Caviness AC, Bialek SR, et al. Hearing loss in children with asymptomatic congenital cytomegalovirus infection. Pediatrics. 2017;139(3):e20162610 10.1542/peds.2016-2610 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Zhang X-W, Li F, Yu X-W, Shi X-W, Shi J, Zhang J-P. Physical and intellectual development in children with asymptomatic congenital cytomegalovirus infection: a longitudinal cohort study in Qinba mountain area, China. Journal of Clinical Virology. 2007;40(3):180–5. 10.1016/j.jcv.2007.08.018 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Anvar B, Mencher GT, Keet SJ. Hearing loss and congenital rubella in Atlantic Canada. Ear and Hearing. 1984;5(6):340–5. 10.1097/00003446-198411000-00003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Chess S, Fernandez P, Korn S. Behavioral consequences of congenital rubella. The Journal of Pediatrics. 1978;93(4):699–703. 10.1016/s0022-3476(78)80921-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Desmond MM, Fisher ES, Vorderman AL, Schaffer HG, Andrew LP, Zion TE, et al. The longitudinal course of congenital rubellaencephalitis in nonretarded children. The Journal of Pediatrics. 1978;93(4):584–91. 10.1016/s0022-3476(78)80892-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Beukers F, Aarnoudse-Moens CS, van Weissenbruch MM, Ganzevoort W, van Goudoever JB, van Wassenaer-Leemhuis AG. Fetal growth restriction with brain sparing: neurocognitive and behavioral outcomes at 12 years of age. The Journal of Pediatrics. 2017;188:103–9. 10.1016/j.jpeds.2017.06.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Guellec I, Lapillonne A, Marret S, Picaud J-C, Mitanchez D, Charkaluk M-L, et al. Effect of intra-and extrauterine growth on long-term neurologic outcomes of very preterm infants. The Journal of Pediatrics. 2016;175:93–9. 10.1016/j.jpeds.2016.05.027 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Guellec I, Lapillonne A, Renolleau S, Charlaluk M-L, Roze J-C, Marret S, et al. Neurologic outcomes at school age in very preterm infants born with severe or mild growth restriction. Pediatrics. 2011;127(4): 883–91. 10.1542/peds.2010-2442 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Leitner Y, Fattal-Valevski A, Geva R, Eshel R, Toledano-Alhadef H, Rotstein M, et al. Neurodevelopmental outcome of children with intrauterine growth retardation: a longitudinal, 10-year prospective study. Journal of Child Neurology. 2007;22(5):580–7. 10.1177/0883073807302605 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Barnett A, Mercuri E, Rutherford M, Haataja L, Frisone M, Henderson S, et al. Neurological and perceptual-motor outcome at 5–6 years of age in children with neonatal encephalopathy: relationship with neonatal brain MRI. Neuropediatrics. 2002;33(05):242–8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Lindström K, Lindblad F, Hjern A. Preterm birth and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in schoolchildren. Pediatrics. 2011;127(5):858–65. 10.1542/peds.2010-1279 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Marlow N, Rose A, Rands C, Draper E. Neuropsychological and educational problems at school age associated with neonatal encephalopathy. Archives of Disease in Childhood-Fetal and Neonatal Edition. 2005;90(5):F380–F7. 10.1136/adc.2004.067520 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Natarajan G, Shankaran S, Pappas A, Bann C, Tyson JE, McDonald S, et al. Functional status at 18 months of age as a predictor of childhood disability after neonatal hypoxic‐ischemic encephalopathy. Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology. 2014;56(11):1052–8. 10.1111/dmcn.12512 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Pappas A, Shankaran S, McDonald SA, Vohr BR, Hintz SR, Ehrenkranz RA, et al. Cognitive outcomes after neonatal encephalopathy. Pediatrics. 2015;135(3):e624–e34. 10.1542/peds.2014-1566 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.van Handel M, Swaab H, de Vries LS, Jongmans MJ. Behavioral outcome in children with a history of neonatal encephalopathy following perinatal asphyxia. Journal of Pediatric Psychology. 2009;35(3):286–95. 10.1093/jpepsy/jsp049 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.van Kooij BJ, van Handel M, Nievelstein RA, Groenendaal F, Jongmans MJ, de Vries LS. Serial MRI and neurodevelopmental outcome in 9-to 10-year-old children with neonatal encephalopathy. The Journal of Pediatrics. 2010;157(2):221–7. 10.1016/j.jpeds.2010.02.016 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.van Schie PE, Schijns J, Becher JG, Barkhof F, van Weissenbruch MM, Vermeulen RJ. Long-term motor and behavioral outcome after perinatal hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy. European Journal of Paediatric Neurology. 2015;19(3):354–9. 10.1016/j.ejpn.2015.01.005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Boskabadi H, Maamouri G, Mafinejad S, Rezagholizadeh F. Clinical course and prognosis of hemolytic jaundice in neonates in North East of Iran. Macedonian Journal of Medical Sciences. 2011;4(4):403–7. 10.1016/j.jpeds.2010.02.016 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Chen M-H, Su T-P, Chen Y-S, Hsu J-W, Huang K-L, Chang W-H, et al. Is neonatal jaundice associated with autism spectrum disorder, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, and other psychological development? A nationwide prospective study. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders. 2014;8(6):625–32. 10.1016/j.rasd.2014.03.006 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Culley P, Powell J, Waterhouse J, Wood B. Sequelae of neonatal jaundice. Br Med J. 1970;3(5719):383–6. 10.1136/bmj.3.5719.383 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Hokkanen L, Launes J, Michelsson K. Adult neurobehavioral outcome of hyperbilirubinemia in full term neonates—a 30 year prospective follow-up study. PeerJ. 2014;2:e294 10.7717/peerj.294 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Kuzniewicz M, Newman TB. Interaction of hemolysis and hyperbilirubinemia on neurodevelopmental outcomes in the collaborative perinatal project. Pediatrics. 2009;123(3):1045–50. 10.1542/peds.2007-3413 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Newman TB, Klebanoff MA. Neonatal hyperbilirubinemia and long-term outcome: another look at the Collaborative Perinatal Project. Pediatrics. 1993;92(5):651–7. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Seidman DS, Paz I, Stevenson DK, Laor A, Danon YL, Gale R. Neonatal hyperbilirubinemia and physical and cognitive performance at 17 years of age. Pediatrics. 1991;88(4):828–33. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Vandborg PK, Hansen BM, Greisen G, Mathiasen R, Kasper F, Ebbesen F. Follow‐up of extreme neonatal hyperbilirubinaemia in 5‐to 10‐year‐old children: a Danish population‐based study. Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology. 2015;57(4):378–84. 10.1111/dmcn.12603 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Anderson PJ, Treyvaud K, Neil JJ, Cheong JL, Hunt RW, Thompson DK, et al. Associations of newborn brain magnetic resonance imaging with long-term neurodevelopmental impairments in very preterm children. The Journal of Pediatrics. 2017;187:58–65. 10.1016/j.jpeds.2017.04.059 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Andrews WW, Cliver SP, Biasini F, Peralta-Carcelen AM, Rector R, Alriksson-Schmidt AI, et al. Early preterm birth: association between in utero exposure to acute inflammation and severe neurodevelopmental disability at 6 years of age. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2008;198(4):466 10.1016/j.ajog.2007.12.031 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Bora S, Pritchard VE, Moor S, Austin NC, Woodward LJ. Emotional and behavioural adjustment of children born very preterm at early school age. Journal of Paediatrics and Child Health. 2011;47(12):863–9. 10.1111/j.1440-1754.2011.02105.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Bos AF, Roze E. Neurodevelopmental outcome in preterm infants. Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology. 2011;53:35–9. 10.1097/WCO.0b013e3282f88bb4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Brévaut-Malaty V, Busuttil M, Einaudi M-A, Monnier A-S, D’Ercole C, Gire C. Longitudinal follow-up of a cohort of 350 singleton infants born at less than 32 weeks of amenorrhea: neurocognitive screening, academic outcome, and perinatal factors. European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology. 2010;150(1):13–8. 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2010.01.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Dotinga BM, de Winter AF, Bocca-Tjeertes IF, Kerstjens JM, Reijneveld SA, Bos AF. Longitudinal growth and emotional and behavioral problems at age 7 in moderate and late preterms. PLOS ONE. 2019;14(1):e0211427 10.1371/journal.pone.0211427 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Easson K, Dahan-Oliel N, Rohlicek C, Sahakian S, Brossard-Racine M, Mazer B, et al. A Comparison of Developmental Outcomes of Adolescent Neonatal Intensive Care Unit Survivors Born with a Congenital Heart Defect or Born Preterm. The Journal of Pediatrics. 2019;207:34–41. e2. 10.1016/j.jpeds.2018.11.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Foulder-Hughes L, Cooke R. Motor, cognitive, and behavioural disorders in children born very preterm. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology. 2003;45(2):97–103. 10.1111/j.1469-8749.2003.tb00912.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Geldof CJ, van Hus JW, Jeukens-Visser M, Nollet F, Kok JH, Oosterlaan J, et al. Deficits in vision and visual attention associated with motor performance of very preterm/very low birth weight children. Research in Developmental Disabilities. 2016;53:258–66. 10.1016/j.ridd.2016.02.008 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Geldof CJ, van Wassenaer-Leemhuis AG, Dik M, Kok JH, Oosterlaan J. A functional approach to cerebral visual impairments in very preterm/very-low-birth-weight children. Pediatric Research. 2015;78(2):190 10.1038/pr.2015.83 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Hadders-Algra M, Huisjes H, Touwen B. Preterm or small-for-gestational-age infants. European Journal of Pediatrics. 1988;147(5):460–7. 10.1007/bf00441967 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Heinonen K, Eriksson JG, Lahti J, Kajantie E, Pesonen A-K, Tuovinen S, et al. Late preterm birth and neurocognitive performance in late adulthood: a birth cohort study. Pediatrics. 2015;135(4):818–25. 10.1542/peds.2014-3556 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Hirvonen M, Ojala R, Korhonen P, Haataja P, Eriksson K, Rantanen K, et al. Intellectual disability in children aged less than seven years born moderately and late preterm compared with very preterm and term‐born children–a nationwide birth cohort study. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research. 2017;61(11):1034–54. 10.1111/jir.12394 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Holmström G, Larsson E. Long-term follow-up of visual functions in prematurely born children—a prospective population-based study up to 10 years of age. Journal of American Association for Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus. 2008;12(2):157–62. 10.1016/j.jaapos.2007.08.012 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Huddy C, Johnson A, Hope P. Educational and behavioural problems in babies of 32–35 weeks gestation. Archives of Disease in Childhood-Fetal and Neonatal Edition. 2001;85(1):F23–F8. 10.1136/fn.85.1.F23 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Jurgens-Van der Zee A, Bierman-van Eendenburg M, Fidler V, Olinga A, Visch J, Touwen B, et al. Preterm birth, growth retardation and acidemia in relation to neurological abnormality of the newborn. Early Human Development. 1979;3(2):141–54. 10.1016/0378-3782(79)90003-3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Koç Ö, Kavuncuoğlu S, Ramoğlu MG, Aldemir E, Aktalay A, Eras Z. School performance and neurodevelopment of very low birth weight preterm infants: first report from Turkey. Journal of Child Neurology. 2016;31(2):170–6. 10.1177/0883073815587028 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 72.Kuban KC, Joseph RM, O'shea TM, Allred EN, Heeren T, Douglass L, et al. Girls and boys born before 28 weeks gestation: risks of cognitive, behavioral, and neurologic outcomes at age 10 years. The Journal of Pediatrics. 2016;173:69–75. 10.1016/j.jpeds.2016.02.048 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 73.Lacey JL, PhD DJHSM. Assessment of preterm infants in the intensive‐care unit to predict cerebral palsy and motor outcome at 6 years. Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology. 1998;40(5):310–8. 10.1111/j.1469-8749.1998.tb15382.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 74.Luu TM, Ment LR, Schneider KC, Katz KH, Allan WC, Vohr BR. Lasting effects of preterm birth and neonatal brain hemorrhage at 12 years of age. Pediatrics. 2009;123(3):1037–44. 10.1542/peds.2008-1162 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 75.Talge NM, Holzman C, Wang J, Lucia V, Gardiner J, Breslau N. Late-preterm birth and its association with cognitive and socioemotional outcomes at 6 years of age. Pediatrics. 2010;126(6):1124–31. 10.1542/peds.2010-1536 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 76.Van Baar AL, Van Wassenaer AG, Briët JM, Dekker FW, Kok JH. Very preterm birth is associated with disabilities in multiple developmental domains. Journal of Pediatric Psychology. 2005;30(3):247–55. 10.1093/jpepsy/jsi035 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 77.Van Nguyen T, Abe K. Pathogenesis of congenital rubella virus infection in human fetuses: viral infection in the ciliary body could play an important role in cataractogenesis. EBioMedicine. 2015;2(1):59–63. 10.1016/j.ebiom.2014.10.021 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 78.Allen KA, Brandon DH. Hypoxic ischemic encephalopathy: pathophysiology and experimental treatments. Newborn and Infant Nursing Reviews. 2011;11(3):125–33. 10.1053/j.nainr.2011.07.004 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 79.Riley RD, Higgins JP, Deeks JJ. Interpretation of random effects meta-analyses. BMJ. 2011;342:d549 10.1136/bmj.d549 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Andrew Soundy

Transfer Alert

This paper was transferred from another journal. As a result, its full editorial history (including decision letters, peer reviews and author responses) may not be present.

5 Feb 2020

PONE-D-19-22838

Long-term Outcomes of Survivors of Neonatal Insults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr Magai,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

See comments below 

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by 4 March 2020. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Andrew Soundy

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

Thank you for your submission. Please provide a response to the reviewers comments. I have assessed the manuscript as a second reviewer and have no other comments to make. I note the quality of processes reported.

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements:

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at http://www.plosone.org/attachments/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.plosone.org/attachments/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please ensure that you refer to Figure 4 in your text as, if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the figure.

3. We note you have included a table to which you do not refer in the text of your manuscript. Please ensure that you refer to Table 2 in your text; if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the Table.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: I Don't Know

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Authors Magai et al present an interesting systematic review long-term outcomes of survivors of neonatal insults. The paper should be of interest to researchers and policy makers.

Introduction is concise and well written, aim is clear.

Methods:

Inclusion and exclusion criterias are clear, the search methods are appropriate. The review was registered in Prospero.

1) Is there a reason to choose the follow-up limit of 6 years?

Data extraction and analysis

Did you contact the authors for any missing data?

Results:

Line 120: 94,978 this number includes control group as well?

Line 123-124: please mention the % of survivors in bracket, example NNJ (83.5%)

Did you consider any NNJ or HIE as a neonatal insult? If yes your sample size is diluted. It would help if you include high risk insults such as NNJ requiring intensive phototherapy or exchange transfusion and moderate to severe HIEs.

Similarly a subgroup analysis of preterm birth by weight (ELBW, VLBW) will help.

Discussion

Overall discussion is well written, however following points may need attention.

1) Publication bias needs to be discussed

2) High heterogeneity is important. Random effect model may be useful, however a subgroup analysis of studies with lower heterogeneity is important (example I2 <60%)

3) No mention of any missing data and approach to address this important issue.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2020 Apr 24;15(4):e0231947. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0231947.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0

6 Mar 2020

Review Comments to the Author

Methods:

1) Is there a reason to choose the follow-up limit of 6 years?

� We considered children from six years of age, as this is the age where most children join elementary school, especially in low-and-middle-income countries. We have amended this part as follows:

Criteria for eligible studies were: i) empirical studies conducted in humans; ii) the study participants had follow-up data coinciding with the age bracket at six years or older (we considered children from six years as this is the age where most children join elementary school, especially in low-and-middle-income countries) (page 5, line 63-66).

Data extraction and analysis

2) Did you contact the authors for any missing data?

� We had 65 articles which could not be accessed online. Most of them were older than two decades (probably not archived online). Out of these, in 50 articles we were not able to find the contact details of the corresponding authors, in one article our email was not delivered (the author had probably left the institution and changed their email addresses). Nine authors did not respond to our emails even after three reminders. Five authors sent us full articles; however, these did not meet the inclusion criteria.

Additionally, there were 35 articles with a wide age range (e.g. 2 months to 10 years). We contacted authors of these studies to inquire whether they conducted a sub-group analysis for participants aged six years and above. However, we were not able to get this information from the contacted authors. We have edited figure 1 to capture this information.

Results:

3) Line 120: 94,978 this number includes control group as well?

� The 94,978 were survivors of neonatal insults. The control group is not included in the numbers, as indicated below.

Overall, 94,978 survivors of NNI were included in the studies in this review (page 7, line 122).

4) Line 123-124: please mention the % of survivors in bracket, example NNJ (83.5%)

� We have amended this part as follows: The most examined or studied NNI were HIE (15.4%), NNJ (15.4%), and preterm birth (42.3%) (page 8, line 126).

5) Did you consider any NNJ or HIE as a neonatal insult? If yes, your sample size is diluted. It would help if you include high risk insults such as NNJ requiring intensive phototherapy or exchange transfusion and moderate to severe HIEs.

� The systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to examine the long-term impact of NNI globally. We considered all articles that provided a clear diagnosis of NNJ or HIE, and we did not limit the inclusion of these studies based on the severity of NNJ or HIE as we intended to determine if any of the children irrespective of the severity of their condition develop neurocognitive or mental health sequelae. Additionally, given the limited long-term outcome studies in these conditions, we included all the studies with a clear diagnosis of NNJ or HIE despite the severity of the condition. However, we have noted this as a limitation of our study as indicated below.

Second, the inclusion of all children with a diagnosis of NNJ or HIE in the study without considering the severity levels might have diluted our sample (page 15, line 243-245).

6) Similarly, a subgroup analysis of preterm birth by weight (ELBW, VLBW) will help.

� We have revised this part as follows: We conducted a sub group analysis of 15 preterm birth studies with extremely low birth weight participants, and similar results were obtained (page 8, line 138-139).

Discussion

7) Overall discussion is well written, however following points may need attention.

Publication bias needs to be discussed.

� We have discussed the publication bias as follows:

Lastly, the results of this study should be cautiously interpreted as we found publication bias indicated by the asymmetry forest plot, which may imply that studies with significant results were more likely to be published than those with non-significant results. The publication bias could also reflect the high heterogeneity in the studies included in this systematic review and meta-analysis (page 15, line 251-255).

8) High heterogeneity is important. Random effect model may be useful, however a subgroup analysis of studies with lower heterogeneity is important (example I2 <60%)

� We thank the reviewer for this suggestion and acknowledge his recommendation for the subgroup analysis. However, the studies included in the meta-analysis in each condition are few and not optimal to conduct a subgroup analysis. We appreciate the reviewer’s recognition of the robustness of the random effect model in dealing with heterogeneity in studies.

9) No mention of any missing data and approach to address this important issue.

� In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we did not work with any primary data. We extracted secondary data from all the included studies, and we did not experience any missing data. Moreover, for the articles that we could not retrieve, their eligibility to be included in this study is doubtful since we are not sure whether they met the inclusion criteria for this systematic review and meta-analysis. We have corrected figure 1 to clarify that the 35 studies had a wide age range and not missing data as had previously been stated.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file. (18.7KB, docx)

Decision Letter 1

Andrew Soundy

6 Apr 2020

Long-term Outcomes of Survivors of Neonatal Insults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

PONE-D-19-22838R1

Dear Dr. Magai,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it complies with all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you will receive an e-mail containing information on the amendments required prior to publication. When all required modifications have been addressed, you will receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will proceed to our production department and be scheduled for publication.

Shortly after the formal acceptance letter is sent, an invoice for payment will follow. To ensure an efficient production and billing process, please log into Editorial Manager at https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, you must inform our press team as soon as possible and no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

With kind regards,

Andrew Soundy

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Thank you for this resubmission.

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Andrew Soundy

13 Apr 2020

PONE-D-19-22838R1

Long-term Outcomes of Survivors of Neonatal Insults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Dear Dr. Magai:

I am pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper at this point, to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

For any other questions or concerns, please email plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE.

With kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Andrew Soundy

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Checklist. PRISMA 2009 checklist.

    (DOC)

    Click here for additional data file. (64.5KB, doc)
    S1 Appendix. Search terms.

    (DOCX)

    Click here for additional data file. (14.8KB, docx)
    S2 Appendix. References of studies included in the review.

    (DOCX)

    Click here for additional data file. (18.8KB, docx)
    S1 Table. Characteristics of studies included in the review.

    (DOCX)

    Click here for additional data file. (33.6KB, docx)
    S2 Table. Assessment of quality of studies.

    (XLSX)

    Click here for additional data file. (12.7KB, xlsx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Click here for additional data file. (18.7KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    The data underlying the results presented in the study are available from https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/NPYQBL.

    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES