Evidence Hub

Prenatal Repair and Physical Functioning Among Children With Myelomeningocele: A Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial

A. Houtrow, Cora Macpherson, Janet Jackson-Coty, Monica Rivera, L. Flynn, P. K. Burrows, N. Adzick, J. Fletcher et al.

JAMA pediatrics, 2021

161 participants · 86 citations

Abstract

Importance

The Management of Myelomeningocele Study (MOMS), a randomized clinical trial of prenatal vs standard postnatal repair for myelomeningocele, found that prenatal repair reduced hydrocephalus and hindbrain herniation and improved motor function in children aged 12 to 30 months. The Management of Myelomeningocele Study Follow-up (MOMS2) was conducted in children at ages 5 to 10 years. The primary (neurocognitive) outcome has already been reported.

Objective

To determine whether MOMS2 participants who had prenatal repair have better physical functioning than those with postnatal repair.

Design, Setting, and Participants

Participants from MOMS were recruited for participation in the follow-up study, MOMS2, conducted from April 9, 2012, to April 15, 2017. For this secondary analysis of the randomized clinical trial, trained examiners without knowledge of the treatment group evaluated the physical characteristics, self-care skills, neurologic function, and mobility of the children. Physical functioning outcomes were compared between the prenatal and postnatal repair groups. MOMS2 was conducted at the same 3 clinical sites as MOMS. Home visits were conducted for families who were unable to travel to one of the clinical sites. Of the 161 children with myelomeningocele aged 5 to 10 years old enrolled in MOMS2, 154 had a physical examination and were included in the analyses.

Exposures

Prenatal repair of myelomeningocele.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Prespecified secondary…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a secondary / pooled analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 161 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free