ArticleBMC pediatrics2026
Comparison of early growth and development in very preterm children in the Netherlands between the 1980s and 2000s.
Article in BMC pediatrics, 2026. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSince 1990, the survival rate of very preterm (VP) infants (born < 32 weeks of gestation) has significantly improved due to advancements in neonatal care practices. This study aimed to investigate whether these medical advances have translated into better growth and neurodevelopmental outcomes during the early life of VP children.
methodsA comparative analysis was performed using data from two community-based studies: POPS (1983) and LOLLIPOP (2002/2003). A total of 1,294 very preterm (VP) infants provided data on height, weight, and head circumference during the first two years of life, as well as fine motor skills, gross motor skills, and communication milestones at 24 months of age. Rigorous harmonization procedures were applied to ensure comparability, including the standardization of growth metrics and consistent definitions for neurodevelopmental milestones across cohorts. Analyses were adjusted for higher parental education, severe intraventricular haemorrhage (IVH) and extended neonatal hospital stay to uncover if improvements reduce the differences in growth and neurodevelopment.
resultsThe LOLLIPOP cohort showed better height and weight growth trajectories within the first 24 months of life, even after controlling for sociodemographic and neonatal factors. Differences in head circumference trajectories were significant in unadjusted analyses but lost significance when adjusted for higher parental education, severe IVH, and extended hospital stays. Neurodevelopmental milestones, particularly gross and fine motor skills (e.g., "imitates others" and "squats or bends to pick things up"), improved in the LOLLIPOP cohort but were attenuated after adjustment. Substantial delays in communication (e.g., "says sentences of two words") and gross motor milestones (e.g., "walks well alone") were observed across both cohorts compared to the norms derived from full-term children.
conclusionVP infants born in the 2000s exhibited modest improvements in growth outcomes compared to those born in the 1980s. Reductions in neurodevelopmental impairments for the VP infants born in the 2000s are associated with higher parental education levels and reduced neonatal complications. Despite these advancements, persistent delays in cognitive and motor development underscore the necessity for early and targeted interventions to support VP children effectively.
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.