Balance ability of 7 and 10 year old children in the population:results from a large UK birth cohort study

OBJECTIVE: The literature contains many reports of balance function in children, but these are often on atypical samples taken from hospital-based clinics and may not be generalisable to the population as a whole. The purpose of the present study is to describe balance test results from a large UK-based birth cohort study. METHODS: Data from the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (ALSPAC) were analysed. A total of 5402 children completed the heel-to-toe walking test at age 7 years. At age 10 years, 6915 children underwent clinical tests of balance including beam-walking, standing heel-to-toe on a beam and standing on one leg. A proportion of the children returned to the clinic for retesting within 3 months allowing test-retest agreement to be measured. RESULTS: Frequency distributions for each of the balance tests are given. Correlations between measures of dynamic balance at ages 7 and 10 years were weak. The static balance of 10 year old children was found to be poorer with eyes closed than with eyes open, and poorer in boys than in girls for all measures. Balance on one leg was poorer than heel-to-toe balance on a beam. A significant learning effect was found when first and second attempts of the tests were compared. Measures of static and dynamic balance appeared independent. Consistent with previous reports in the literature, test-retest reliability was found to be low. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides information about the balance ability of children aged 7 and 10 years and provides clinicians with reference data for balance tests commonly used in the paediatric clinic.

Diagnosis of retinopathy in children younger than 12 years of age:implications for the diabetic eye screening guidelines in the UK

Aim: To assess whether the current starting age of 12 is suitable for diabetic retinopathy (DR) screening and whether diabetes duration should be taken into account when deciding at what age to start screening patients. Materials and methods: A retrospective analysis of 143 patients aged 12 years or younger who attended diabetic eye screening for the first time in the Birmingham, Solihull and Black Country Diabetic Eye Screening Programme was performed. Results: The mean age of the patients was 10.7 (7-12) years with 73 out of 143 aged below 12 years and 70 were 12 years of age. 98% had type 1 diabetes and mean diabetes duration was 5 (1 month-11 years) years. For those younger than 12 years, 7/73 (9.6%) had background DR (BDR), of these mean diabetes duration was 7 years (6-8). The youngest patient to present with DR was aged 8 years. In those aged 12 years, 5/70 (7.1%) had BDR; of these mean diabetes duration was 8 years (6-11). No patient developed DR before 6 years duration in either group. Conclusions: The results show that no patient younger than the age of 12 had sight-threatening DR (STDR), but BDR was identified. Based on the current mission statement of the Diabetic Eye Screening Programme to identify STDR, 12 years of age is confirmed as the right age to start screening, but if it is important to diabetic management to identify first development of DR, then screening should begin after 6 years of diabetes diagnosis.

What is the current practice of medicines reconciliation in children nationally in the UK?

INTRODUCTION: The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence/National Patient Safety Agency (NICE/NPSA) guidelines for medicines reconciliation (MR) on admission to hospital in adult inpatients were introduced in 2007, but they excluded children less than 16 years of age. METHOD: We conducted a survey of 98 paediatric pharmacists (each from a different hospital) to find out what the current practice of MR in children is in the UK. KEY FINDINGS: Responses showed that 67% (43/64) of pharmacists surveyed carried out MR in all children at admission and only a third 34% (22/64) had policies for MR in children. Of the respondents who did not carry out MR in all children, 80% (4/5) responded that they did so in selected children. Pharmacists considered themselves the most appropriate profession for carrying out MR. When asked whether the NICE guidance should be expanded to include children, 98% (54/55) of the respondents answered 'yes'. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, the findings suggest that MR is being conducted inconsistently in children and most paediatric pharmacists would like national guidance to be expanded to include children.

Association of SNPs in LCP1 and CTIF with hearing in 11 year old children:findings from the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (ALSPAC) birth cohort and the G-EAR consortium

BACKGROUND: The genetic basis of hearing loss in humans is relatively poorly understood. In recent years, experimental approaches including laboratory studies of early onset hearing loss in inbred mouse strains, or proteomic analyses of hair cells or hair bundles, have suggested new candidate molecules involved in hearing function. However, the relevance of these genes/gene products to hearing function in humans remains unknown. We investigated whether single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in the human orthologues of genes of interest arising from the above-mentioned studies correlate with hearing function in children. METHODS: 577 SNPs from 13 genes were each analysed by linear regression against averaged high (3, 4 and 8 kHz) or low frequency (0.5, 1 and 2 kHz) audiometry data from 4970 children in the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (ALSPAC) birth-cohort at age eleven years. Genes found to contain SNPs with low p-values were then investigated in 3417 adults in the G-EAR study of hearing. RESULTS: Genotypic data were available in ALSPAC for a total of 577 SNPs from 13 genes of interest. Two SNPs approached sample-wide significance (pre-specified at p = 0.00014): rs12959910 in CBP80/20-dependent translation initiation factor (CTIF) for averaged high frequency hearing (p = 0.00079, β = 0.61 dB per minor allele); and rs10492452 in L-plastin (LCP1) for averaged low frequency hearing (p = 0.00056, β = 0.45 dB). For low frequencies, rs9567638 in LCP1 also enhanced hearing in females (p = 0.0011, β = -1.76 dB; males p = 0.23, β = 0.61 dB, likelihood-ratio test p = 0.006). SNPs in LCP1 and CTIF were then examined against low and high frequency hearing data for adults in G-EAR. Although the ALSPAC results were not replicated, a SNP in LCP1, rs17601960, is in strong LD with rs9967638, and was associated with enhanced low frequency hearing in adult females in G-EAR (p = 0.00084). CONCLUSIONS: There was evidence to suggest that multiple SNPs in CTIF may contribute a small detrimental effect to hearing, and that a sex-specific locus in LCP1 is protective of hearing. No individual SNPs reached sample-wide significance in both ALSPAC and G-EAR. This is the first report of a possible association between LCP1 and hearing function.