Aim: To assess the intelligence quotient (IQ) and academic achievement in earl y adulthood of a cohort of extremely-low birthweight (ELBW ≤1000 g) subjects. Methods: All 82 ELBW survivors consecutively born in or ref...Aim: To assess the intelligence quotient (IQ) and academic achievement in earl y adulthood of a cohort of extremely-low birthweight (ELBW ≤1000 g) subjects. Methods: All 82 ELBW survivors consecutively born in or referred to a single ter tiary center in 1976-1981 were traced at a mean age of 18 y. Three disabled chi ldren had died. Fifty-nine subjects (75%)-had their IQ tested and 69 (87%) r esponded to a questionnaire. They were compared to 44 term, normal birthweight ( NBW)-matched controls. Outcome measures were: IQ (Wechsler Adult Intelligence S cale) and educational outcome. The main outcome variables were compared between groups and analyzed for neonatal and demographic data and in the ELBWgroup for c hildhood data. Results: There was a strong relationship (r2 = 0.55, p < 0.0001) between childhood and adult IQ for the 41 ELBW subjects tested at both ages (6.1 ±1.3 and 18.4 ±1.9 y). Differences were significant between ELBW and NBW grou ps: in mean full-scale IQ (94 ±12 vs 108 ±14), verbal IQ (93 ±12 vs 106 ±14 ) and performance IQ (97 ±14 vs 109 ±16) (p < 0.0001). Differences between ELB W and NBW groups in prevalence of IQ < 85 (19 vs 2%, p = 0.012), of schooling i n a regular curriculum for age (36 vs 68%, p = 0.0011), of requirement for spec ial classes or schools (33 vs 9%, p = 0.0032), and of obtainment of secondary s chool diploma for those 18 y or older (56 vs 85%, p = 0.018) were largely due t o fathers’socioeconomic score. Conclusion: ELBW subjects had a mean adult IQ in the normal range; however, it was one standard deviation below that of NBW subj ects and they had more school failures. Despite this, more than half of ELBW sub jects aged 18 y or more had obtained their secondary school diploma.展开更多
文摘Aim: To assess the intelligence quotient (IQ) and academic achievement in earl y adulthood of a cohort of extremely-low birthweight (ELBW ≤1000 g) subjects. Methods: All 82 ELBW survivors consecutively born in or referred to a single ter tiary center in 1976-1981 were traced at a mean age of 18 y. Three disabled chi ldren had died. Fifty-nine subjects (75%)-had their IQ tested and 69 (87%) r esponded to a questionnaire. They were compared to 44 term, normal birthweight ( NBW)-matched controls. Outcome measures were: IQ (Wechsler Adult Intelligence S cale) and educational outcome. The main outcome variables were compared between groups and analyzed for neonatal and demographic data and in the ELBWgroup for c hildhood data. Results: There was a strong relationship (r2 = 0.55, p < 0.0001) between childhood and adult IQ for the 41 ELBW subjects tested at both ages (6.1 ±1.3 and 18.4 ±1.9 y). Differences were significant between ELBW and NBW grou ps: in mean full-scale IQ (94 ±12 vs 108 ±14), verbal IQ (93 ±12 vs 106 ±14 ) and performance IQ (97 ±14 vs 109 ±16) (p < 0.0001). Differences between ELB W and NBW groups in prevalence of IQ < 85 (19 vs 2%, p = 0.012), of schooling i n a regular curriculum for age (36 vs 68%, p = 0.0011), of requirement for spec ial classes or schools (33 vs 9%, p = 0.0032), and of obtainment of secondary s chool diploma for those 18 y or older (56 vs 85%, p = 0.018) were largely due t o fathers’socioeconomic score. Conclusion: ELBW subjects had a mean adult IQ in the normal range; however, it was one standard deviation below that of NBW subj ects and they had more school failures. Despite this, more than half of ELBW sub jects aged 18 y or more had obtained their secondary school diploma.
