Premium
The general movement optimality score: a detailed assessment of general movements during preterm and term age
Author(s) -
Einspieler Christa,
Marschik Peter B,
Pansy Jasmin,
Scheuchenegger Anna,
Krieber Magdalena,
Yang Hong,
Kornacka Maria K,
Rowinska Edyta,
Soloveichick Marina,
Bos Arend F
Publication year - 2016
Publication title -
developmental medicine and child neurology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.658
H-Index - 143
eISSN - 1469-8749
pISSN - 0012-1622
DOI - 10.1111/dmcn.12923
Subject(s) - term (time) , movement (music) , repertoire , psychology , physical medicine and rehabilitation , medicine , philosophy , physics , quantum mechanics , acoustics , aesthetics
Aim To explore the appropriateness of applying a detailed assessment of general movements and characterize the relationship between global and detailed assessment. Method The analysis was based on 783 video recordings of 233 infants (154 males, 79 females) who had been videoed from 27 to 45 weeks postmenstrual age. Apart from assessing the global general movement categories (normal, poor repertoire, cramped‐synchronized, or chaotic general movements), we scored the amplitude, speed, spatial range, proximal and distal rotations, onset and offset, tremulous and cramped components of the upper and lower extremities. Applying the optimality concept, the maximum general movement optimality score of 42 indicates the optimal performance. Results General movement optimality scores (GMOS) differentiated between normal general movements (median 39 [25–75th centile 37–41]), poor repertoire general movements (median 25 [22–29]), and cramped‐synchronized general movements (median 12 [10–14]; p <0.01). The optimality score for chaotic general movements (mainly occurring at late preterm age) was similar to those for cramped‐synchronized general movements (median 14 [12–17]). Short‐lasting tremulous movements occurred from very preterm age (<32wks) to post‐term age across all general movement categories, including normal general movements. The detailed score at post‐term age was slightly lower compared to the scores at preterm and term age for both normal ( p =0.02) and poor repertoire general movements ( p <0.01). Interpretation Further research might demonstrate that the GMOS provides a solid base for the prediction of improvement versus deterioration within an individual general movement trajectory.