Journal of Pediatric Neurology 2011; 09(01): 015-021
DOI: 10.3233/JPN-2010-0428
Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart – New York

MRI in children with global developmental delay – a retrospective case note review

Anthony R. Hart
a   Sheffield Children's Hospital National Health Service Foundation Trust, Sheffield, UK
b   Academic Unit of Radiology, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
,
Ruth Batty
b   Academic Unit of Radiology, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
,
Elysa Widjaja
b   Academic Unit of Radiology, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
,
Alan S. Rigby
c   Postgraduate Medical Institute, University of Hull, Hull, UK
,
Daniel J.A. Connolly
b   Academic Unit of Radiology, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
d   Department of Pediatric Radiology, Sheffield Children's Hospital, Sheffield, UK
,
Peter S. Baxter
a   Sheffield Children's Hospital National Health Service Foundation Trust, Sheffield, UK
,
Paul D. Griffiths
b   Academic Unit of Radiology, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
› Institutsangaben

Verantwortlicher Herausgeber dieser Rubrik:
Weitere Informationen

Publikationsverlauf

28. Juli 2009

28. Januar 2010

Publikationsdatum:
30. Juli 2015 (online)

Abstract

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is recommended as a part of investigation of children with global developmental delay (GDD) and additional symptoms, but not for those with isolated GDD. Our aims were to review our local experience on the frequency of abnormalities of the brain in children with developmental delay and assess if abnormalities are as common in our children with isolated GDD as those with GDD and additional symptoms. One hundred and thirty-two children referred for MRI of the brain as part of their investigation for GDD between January 1998 and December 2006 were identified from a local database of MRI in our radiology department. Clinical features up to the point of referral for MRI were noted and participants divided into two groups: isolated GDD, and GDD with additional features. MRI reports were classified as normal or abnormal. Fisher's exact test was used to identify statistical differences in the prevalence of MRI abnormalities between the groups. Nine (6.8%) had isolated GDD and 123 (93.2%) had GDD and additional symptoms. Four (44.4%) of the children with isolated GDD had abnormal MRI. 68 (55.3%) children with GDD and additional symptoms had abnormal MRI. Children with GDD and additional symptoms were 1.51 times more likely to have an abnormal MRI than children with isolated GDD (95% confidence interval = 0.39, 5.88; P = 0.73). No statistical difference existed between the prevalence of abnormalities on MRI in those with isolated GDD and GDD with additional symptoms, although the small numbers of participants with isolated GDD risks a type II statistical error. Further studies are warranted to determine the usefulness of MRI in children with isolated GDD.