Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,298

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 166 of the 166 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A systematic review of interventions for children with cerebral palsy: state of the evidence

Open access
Novak, Iona, Mcintyre, Sarah, Morgan, Catherine, Campbell, Lanie, Dark, Leigha, Morton, Natalie, Stumbles, Elise, Wilson, Salli‐Ann, Goldsmith, Shona·2013·Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology
DOI 10.1111/dmcn.12246
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Aim: The aim of this study was to describe systematically the best available intervention evidence for children with cerebral palsy (CP). Method: This study was a systematic review of systematic reviews. The following databases were searched: CINAHL, C ochrane L ibrary, DARE, EMBASE, G oogle S cholar MEDLINE, OTS eeker, PED ro, Psyc BITE, P syc INFO, and speech BITE. Two independent reviewers determined whether studies met the inclusion criteria. These were that (1) the study was a systematic review or the next best available; (2) it was a medical/allied health intervention; and (3) that more than 25% of participants were children with CP. Interventions were coded using the O xford L evels of E vidence; GRADE; E vidence A lert T raffic L ight; and the I nternational C lassification of F unction, D isability and H ealth. Results: Overall, 166 articles met the inclusion criteria (74% systematic reviews) across 64 discrete interventions seeking 131 outcomes. Of the outcomes assessed, 16% (21 out of 131) were graded ‘do it’ (green go); 58% (76 out of 131) ‘probably do it’ (yellow measure); 20% (26 out of 131) ‘probably do not do it’ (yellow measure); and 6% (8 out of 131) ‘do not do it’ (red stop). Green interventions included anticonvulsants, bimanual training, botulinum toxin, bisphosphonates, casting, constraint‐induced movement therapy, context‐focused therapy, diazepam, fitness training, goal‐directed training, hip surveillance, home programmes, occupational therapy after botulinum toxin, pressure care, and selective dorsal rhizotomy. Most (70%) evidence for intervention was lower level (yellow) while 6% was ineffective (red). Interpretation: Evidence supports 15 green light interventions. All yellow light interventions should be accompanied by a sensitive outcome measure to monitor progress and red light interventions should be discontinued since alternatives exist.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/dmcn.12246

Cites

166 of 166 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 166 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Novak, I., Mcintyre, S., Morgan, C., Campbell, L., Dark, L., Morton, N., Stumbles, E., Wilson, S., & Goldsmith, S.
Venue
Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2013-08-21
Volume
55
Issue
10
Pages
885-910
ISSN
  • 0012-1622 (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-8749
DOI
10.1111/dmcn.12246
OpenAlex
W2166223138
Cited by
1,298
References
166
FWCI
11.44
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.