The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Therapeutic Management of Upper-Limb Dysfunction in Children With Congenital Hemiplegia
Abstract
CONTEXT. Rehabilitation for children with congenital hemiplegia to improve function in the impaired upper limb and enhance participation may be time-consuming and costly. OBJECTIVES. To systematically review the efficacy of nonsurgical upper-limb therapeutic interventions for children with congenital hemiplegia. METHODS. The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Medline, CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature), AMED (Allied and Complementary Medicine), Embase, PsycINFO, and Web of Science were searched up to July 2008. Data sources were randomized or quasi-randomized trials and systematic reviews. RESULTS. Twelve studies and 7 systematic reviews met our criteria. Trials had strong methodologic quality (Physiotherapy Evidence Database [PEDro] scale ≥ 5), and systematic reviews rated strongly (AMSTAR [Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews] score ≥ 6). Four interventions were identified: intramuscular botulinum toxin A combined with upper-limb training; constraint-induced movement therapy; hand-arm bimanual intensive training; and neurodevelopmental therapy. Data were pooled for upper-limb, self-care, and individualized outcomes. There were small-to-medium treatment effects favoring intramuscular botulinum toxin A and occupational therapy, neurodevelopmental therapy and casting, constraint-induced movement therapy, and hand-arm bimanual intensive training on upper-limb outcomes. There were large treatment effects favoring intramuscular botulinum toxin A and upper-limb training for individualized outcomes. No studies reported participation outcomes. CONCLUSIONS. No one treatment approach seems to be superior; however, injections of botulinum toxin A provide a supplementary benefit to a variety of upper-limb–training approaches. Additional research is needed to justify more-intensive approaches such as constraint-induced movement therapy and hand-arm bimanual intensive training.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Reliability of the PEDro Scale for Rating Quality of Randomized Controlled Trials
Maher, C. G., Sherrington, C., Herbert, R. D., Moseley, A. M., & Elkins, M. (2003) · Physical Therapy · doi:10.1093/ptj/83.8.713 · Cited by 4,808
Evidence for physiotherapy practice: A survey of the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro)
Moseley, A. M., Herbert, R. D., Sherrington, C., & Maher, C. G. (2002) · Australian Journal of Physiotherapy · doi:10.1016/s0004-9514(14)60281-6 · Cited by 911 · cited 2×
“The AMSTAR criteria are (1) a priori design; (2) duplicate study selection and data extraction; (3) comprehensive literature search; (4) inclusive publication status; (5) included/excluded studies provided; (6) characteristics of included studies provided; (7) quality assessment of studies; (8) study quality used appr…”
Background
Metadata
- Authors
- Sakzewski, L., Ziviani, J., & Boyd, R.
- Venue
- Pediatrics
- Publisher
- American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP)
- Published
- 2009-06-01
- Volume
- 123
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- e1111-e1122
- ISSN
- 0031-4005 (ISSN-L)
- 1098-4275
- OpenAlex
- W2115161372
- Cited by
- 260
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 2.33
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Therapeutic Management of Upper-Limb Dysfunction in Children With Congenital Hemiplegia. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1542/peds.2008-3335
- The paper
- Sakzewski, L., Ziviani, J., & Boyd, R. (2009). Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Therapeutic Management of Upper-Limb Dysfunction in Children With Congenital Hemiplegia. Pediatrics. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2008-3335
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.