ArticleJournal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association2025
General movement assessments in neonates born with congenital gastrointestinal anomalies: a single site, retrospective study.
Article in Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveWe aimed to characterize general movements in neonates with congenital gastrointestinal anomalies and to compare them to general movements in extremely low birth weight (ELBW) infants. STUDY
designThis was a retrospective, single-site study. Subjects were divided into two groups: those with gastrointestinal (GI) anomalies and ELBW infants (birth weight <1 kg). The primary outcome was general movement assessments.
resultNinety-six infants were included (n = 51, GI group and n = 45, ELBW group). The rates of abnormal general movements between the groups were comparable (writhing movements: 61% vs. 59%, p = 0.89; fidgety movements: 20% vs. 36%, p = 0.13). Writhing movements were different (100% poor repertoire, 0% cramped synchronous in the GI group vs. 50% poor repertoire and 50% cramped synchronous in the ELBW group, p < 0.001).
conclusionInfants with gastrointestinal anomalies are at risk for abnormal general movements. Abnormal fidgety general movements may be an early biomarker for future motor deficits.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.