ArticleFrontiers in pediatrics2025
Study of evoked potentials and early development in premature infants.
Article in Frontiers in pediatrics, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Evoked potentials have been suggested as potential biomarkers for predicting neurodevelopment. This study aimed to investigate the relationship between evoked potentials (EP) and neurodevelopmental outcomes in preterm infants. Methods: Premature infants admitted to the neonatal intensive care unit of a tertiary referral hospital between March 2020 and March 2023 were included in the study. Among them, only those with EP at a corrected age of 40 weeks were included, meanwhile, infants who did not undergo the test or had abnormal results were excluded. Additionally, patients with follow-up developmental outcomes such as the Hammersmith Infant Neurological Examination (HINE) at 3 months corrected age or the Gross Motor Function Measure (GMFM) at 6 months corrected age were included. Results: A total of 24 participants were included in this study. No significant differences in the clinical factors and results of the EP studies were observed between the two groups divided by a HINE score of 60. Hierarchical logistic regression analysis revealed that visual EP was the only factor that correlated with the lying and rolling domains of the GMFM ( Discussion: A significant association was observed between the GMFM and visual EP. Integrating the visual EP latency with other parameters may improve clinical assessments to predict developmental outcomes, possibly improving the accuracy of medical interventions and patient outcomes.
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.