Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

IdaBriggs

(10,559 posts)
Thu Mar 26, 2015, 09:26 AM Mar 2015

My (Rejected) Poster for a regional Cerebral Palsy Conference.

Good luck guessing why it got rejected. Also, it had pretty graphs, charts and a cool breakdown of the demographics.

MICRONUTRIENT DEFICIENCY AS AN UNDIAGNOSED SUBSET OF CEREBRAL PALSY

Objective: What if a subset of children diagnosed with cerebral palsy (CP) instead or also have correctable micronutrient deficiencies?

Promising preliminary observations using oral supplementation of liquid micronutrient compounds show improvement in movement disorders including muscle tone and strength, gross and fine motor skills, and coordination. Positive changes were also seen in children with growth issues, notably weight, height, and appetite. Children with diagnosed cognitive and communication developmental delays also displayed improvement, as did a significant subset that reported sensory processing issues. However, we have yet to perform a randomized trial to assess the validity of these findings.

How can one design a study to determine if a subset of children diagnosed with CP possess micronutrient deficiencies and whether remedying these deficiencies improves CP?

Methods: Subjects were enrolled from June to December 2012 with an average observation period of 118 days. Enrollment was open to a heterogeneous group of children displaying mobility issues (including CP), neuromuscular issues, growth retardation (including failure-to-thrive), cognitive/communication or other developmental delays, and sensory processing issues. Parents were instructed to administer liquid micronutrient compounds on a consistent schedule and report changes or lack thereof on a bi-weekly basis. Data were obtained through a combination of online parent reporting and one-on-one interviews. Eight categories were defined to evaluate change during the observation period: four primary categories (muscle tone and strength, weight/height, cognition, speech/communication) and four secondary categories (bowel function, appetite, energy/stamina, and sensory processing). For each of these categories, the parents responded that there was either observed change or no change, and then described the change as being positive or negative. For purposes of this project, positive change was considered improvement.

Results: 122 children were recruited. There were no other statistical differences in demographic or baseline characteristics. All improvements are based on documented parent reports. During the observation 88 children (72%) experienced improvement in muscle tone and strength. 104 children (85%) experienced improvement in weight and/or height. 71 children (58%) experienced improvement in cognition. 81 children (66%) experienced improvement in communication.

117 children (96%) experienced improvement in at least one primary category. 101 children (83%) experienced improvement in two primary categories. 79 children (65%) experienced improvement in three primary categories. 47 children (39%) experienced improvement in all four primary categories.

Improvement in secondary categories included bowel function (n=81, 66%), appetite (n=79, 65%), energy and stamina (n=85, 70%) and sensory processing (n=40, 33%). Overall, 102 children (83%) experienced improvement in four or more defined categories.

Discussion
Cerebral palsy has several well-known risk factors including prematurity, low birth weight, and possibly insufficient maternal nutrient intake in pregnancy. The correlation between pre-term birth, nutrient deficiency, and cerebral palsy is the focus of our project.

Animal studies as early as the 1950s have demonstrated the link between trace mineral deficiency and increased morbidity, including poor growth and weak muscles. Veterinary science recognizes the role that trace minerals play in avoiding deficiency diseases, and widespread supplementation from the 1950s to the 1990s has largely eradicated these diseases in farm animals. Trace minerals are considered essential for optimum health, growth and productivity, carrying out key functions as catalysts for enzymes and hormones. In accordance with this established science it is still common for trace mineral supplements to be given to both large and small livestock animals.

In human medicine trace minerals are considered ubiquitous in a healthy, nutritionally balanced diet, occurring naturally in the environment. Healthy human beings are, by definition, assumed to be in a state of homeostasis, with all metabolic needs met, whereas insufficient intake of dietary nutrients leads to deficiency diseases. However, there are certain population subsets that are unable to maintain a nutritionally balanced diet, most notably pre-term infants. The premature infant is at increased risk for nutrient deficiencies, and breast milk, while a preferred food source for full-term infants, does not contain the higher amounts of essential nutrients needed by pre-term infants. Because of this, it is common practice to supplement the pre-term infant’s food intake with vitamins and other essential nutrients. Total parenteral nutrition is also commonly administered to these infants, but despite the intent to act as a complete dietary supplement, several key nutrients are absent, such as sulfur, cobalt and iron.

It has been demonstrated in previous research that the premature neonate is also at increased risk of trace mineral deficiency because trace mineral accretion occurs during the last trimester of pregnancy. This accretion process would logically be interrupted in pre-term infants born at gestational ages of less than 38 weeks. In the case of a diagnosed deficiency of an essential nutrient such as iron, calcium, or Vitamin D, it is standard practice to instruct patients to increase dietary intake of the needed nutrient(s). To diagnose a nutrient deficiency there are well known, standardized tests for essential nutrients, however there are currently no standardized tests for trace mineral deficiencies. Additionally, most trace minerals do not currently have a USRDA, the assumption being that they are already present in minute amounts in the typical patient’s diet.

By definition, cerebral palsy (CP) is a group of non-progressive permanent motor disorders that appear in early childhood. However, not all diagnosed movement disorders are CP. For example, in the 1990s pediatric research established new testing protocols to identify the group of conditions called “inborn errors of metabolism”. Before these tests were developed, some patients with one of these conditions could have been diagnosed with a movement disorder, and being within the umbrella diagnosis of CP, subsequent treatment may have progressed without addressing the underlying disorder. Re-defining these cases as inborn errors of metabolism led to developing specific treatment protocols with substantial improvements in outcomes.

Our goal was to measure the effects of micronutrient supplementation on mobility and/or growth rate in a population diagnosed with, or at risk for CP.

Infants and children who had a diagnosis of prematurity or growth retardation as well as those with CP or other neuromuscular issues who were not necessarily premature were recruited. Liquid micronutrient compounds were administered by parents on a consistent schedule, and observations were documented for eight categories: muscle tone and strength, weight/height, cognition, speech/communication, bowel function, appetite, energy/stamina, and sensory processing. Any changes observed were documented in parent reports.

Based on observational data, 117 children experienced improvement in at least one of the primary categories, the most common being weight and height. Improvement in this category was characterized as “muscular weight gain” usually followed by an increase in height, as per expected growth patterns.

88 children (72%) experienced improvement in muscle tone and strength; these changes were reported as an increase in core strength (trunk) followed by changes in tone and/or strength of the extremities. Changes in strength frequently led to changes in mobility levels, and improved fine motor skills and coordination were often noted.

Certain patterns were observed in the chronological order of positive changes among the participants: improvement in bowel function was most often the first change noted, occurring within the first 10 days after starting the supplements. This change was more often noted in younger children and infants, likely due to older children using the toilet independently. Increased appetite was observed between 14 and 21 days, although if there was no increase in appetite there were still some positive changes in other defined categories. Improvement in the remaining six categories typically began to occur between 42 and 56 days.

Evaluating positive changes in sensory processing revealed an interesting circumstance: of the 18 participants with known sensory processing issues, 9 (50%) observed improvement. However, an additional 31 participants also reported improvement in this category. These 31 participants were primarily focused on more serious neuromuscular (mobility) issues, developmental delays and failure-to-thrive concerns.

We found during the course of observation that relying on parent reporting for specific measurements was a limiting factor - accuracy and completeness was an issue. Another known limitation was the lack of clinical diagnosis and evaluation to establish baseline characteristics. Most importantly, we cannot be certain, without a control group, that there is a causal relationship between supplement and outcomes. We would appreciate feedback on how to identify children who might benefit from this nutritional treatment, and also how best to conduct a randomized trial to properly test the value of this treatment.


11 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
My (Rejected) Poster for a regional Cerebral Palsy Conference. (Original Post) IdaBriggs Mar 2015 OP
OK...I'll bite. CanSocDem Mar 2015 #1
This was a specific type of poster. IdaBriggs Mar 2015 #4
Excellent post, Ida Briggs! Dont call me Shirley Mar 2015 #2
Thank you - pretty depressing day at the conference yesterday. IdaBriggs Mar 2015 #5
Society isn't there yet Ida. The vast body of nutritional study has been so purposely repressed by Dont call me Shirley Mar 2015 #7
I used to work on scientific posters Sweet Freedom Mar 2015 #3
Next time you are getting called! IdaBriggs Mar 2015 #6
Did they give you a reason for the rejection? Avalux Mar 2015 #8
We were asking for help with study design to suck researchers in so the IdaBriggs Mar 2015 #11
Why would you expect them to? CreekDog Mar 2015 #9
!!! Man, you ROCKED IT!!! IdaBriggs Mar 2015 #10
 

CanSocDem

(3,286 posts)
1. OK...I'll bite.
Thu Mar 26, 2015, 09:44 AM
Mar 2015


For a "poster"....it is too wordy. Don't indulge the 'left-brainers'. Just say NUTRITION MATTERS.



.
 

IdaBriggs

(10,559 posts)
4. This was a specific type of poster.
Thu Mar 26, 2015, 01:59 PM
Mar 2015

It was four foot by six foot and is the summary of a much longer paper. There were three columns, and the above verbiage filled about 1 and 1/2 of them - the rest was graphics.

Sorry for not being clear - poster means something different to the researchers!



(And no, it wasn't rejected for being too wordy, but good guess!)

Dont call me Shirley

(10,998 posts)
7. Society isn't there yet Ida. The vast body of nutritional study has been so purposely repressed by
Thu Mar 26, 2015, 02:40 PM
Mar 2015

the food, pharmaceutical, medical and chemical corporations. It may take decades to get the public to the nutritional truth.

You are what you eat. Nutrition affects your mind and body.

Sweet Freedom

(3,995 posts)
3. I used to work on scientific posters
Thu Mar 26, 2015, 11:13 AM
Mar 2015

I have a couple suggestions that may, or may not be helpful if you ever decide to resubmit. In my experience, people prefer not to read. They go up to the poster if the title interests them. Then they read the conclusion and if they're still interested, they look at the charts and graphs. If they are really interested, they read the poster.

Your objective and discussion sections are long. I think I would try to break them up into an intro or background.

For example, I might move your second paragraph in the objective into an introduction section. And then I would rephrase the first question in the objective as a statement.

A subset of children with cerebral palsy may have…

And could the third paragraph in your objective be a conclusion? (also phrased as a statement, not a question.)

There is a need for a study…

I don't know if any of this is helpful to you, but if you had been one of my clients, these are some of the suggestions I would've made.

 

IdaBriggs

(10,559 posts)
6. Next time you are getting called!
Thu Mar 26, 2015, 02:08 PM
Mar 2015

And you were getting warmer as to why we got rejected, but not there.

The "phrase as a question" and missing "real conclusion" is because I am not a doctor and the goal was to get the doctors interested in investigating, so we were being very cautious about not stating anything we couldn't footnote or prove with documentation.

This was an analysis of the data provided by parents of the Preemie Growth Project; all information was provided over the Internet (personal info excepted, of course) and with no sponsoring hospital or university, there was no IRB.

The results might have been amazing, but rejected. Isn't it terrible about CP? No real advances in decades. (Discussed at length yesterday.) Tsk. Tsk.

Avalux

(35,015 posts)
8. Did they give you a reason for the rejection?
Thu Mar 26, 2015, 04:28 PM
Mar 2015

I don't know if they rejected based on format or study design....what their criteria was for acceptance.

From a completely scientific point of view, this was not a well-designed study. I understand what you're trying to do, but all you've got is anecdotes, in the absence of confirmed CP diagnoses, objective assessments, and verification of compliance with micronutrient compound dosing. If you want a well-designed study I could be of help...I think you've found something, just have to prove it so that the medical community will take the results seriously.

 

IdaBriggs

(10,559 posts)
11. We were asking for help with study design to suck researchers in so the
Thu Mar 26, 2015, 10:26 PM
Mar 2015

Documented anecdotes of 122 families (with medical records to back their claims, thank you) could actually be investigated with appropriateed scientific rigor.

If scientists don't know that something works, then they can't investigate. I have found "something" and it is extremely important, and if you are interested, IM and we can discuss more offline.

CreekDog

(46,192 posts)
9. Why would you expect them to?
Thu Mar 26, 2015, 04:39 PM
Mar 2015

It sounds like you conducted a study using human subjects without physician monitoring or oversight.

The compounds were given to the children by parents and the parents were the ones to report whether they worked or not.

Oh and it's not a study based on randomly chosen test subjects, and the compounds are not listed.

On what basis were you expecting to have this approved? Word Count?

 

IdaBriggs

(10,559 posts)
10. !!! Man, you ROCKED IT!!!
Thu Mar 26, 2015, 10:21 PM
Mar 2015

Word count wasn't the issue, and parental reports weren't the problem. IRB was the issue.

I love your attitude - the arrogance is just so adorable!!! The reports of parents whose CP diagnosed children changed multiple levels of GMFCS level, along with a plausible explanation for the cause and prevention of common forms of cerebral palsy might have been of interest to some folks, but with no IRB the data is supposed to be ignored. Bonus: because it was a multiple component compound, researchers won't investigate because (quote) "too many variables."

The poster was created at the invitation of one of the nation's most respected CP researchers and input was received from a nationally recognized NIH epidemiologist.

The first freak out was because "it looked too professional" and then went down hill with IRB being the excuse. Again, aggregation of publicly available case study data presented in a way that was intended to make sense to the specific crowd.

Lots of job security in CP world, especially if the numbers we report hold up. Fortunately, plans are in motion....

But I *love* your viewpoint - thank you!



PS I did forget to mention the whole "invited to present, knowing there was no IRB, etc." didn't I? Word count! That was a good one!



ON EDIT: And each participant was monitored by their pediatrician, thank you. Couldn't let that bit of nonsense stand uncorrected.

Latest Discussions»The DU Lounge»My (Rejected) Poster for ...