A systematic review of evaluation methods for neonatal brachial plexus palsy
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
OBJECT: Neonatal brachial plexus palsy (NBPP) affects 0.4-2.6 newborns per 1000 live births in the US. Many infants recover spontaneously, but for those without spontaneous recovery, nerve and/or secondary musculoskeletal reconstruction can restore function to the affected arm. This condition not only manifests in a paretic/paralyzed arm, but also affects the overall health and psychosocial condition of the children and their parents. Currently, measurement instruments for NBPP focus primarily on physical ability, with limited information regarding the effect of the disablement on activities of daily living and the child's psychosocial well-being. It is also difficult to assess and compare overall treatment efficacy among medical (conservative) or surgical management strategies without consistent use of evaluation instruments. The purpose of this study is to review the reported measurement evaluation methods for NBPP in an attempt to provide recommendations for future measurement usage and development. METHODS: The authors systematically reviewed the literature published between January 1980 and February 2012 using multiple databases to search the keywords "brachial plexus" and "obstetric" or "pediatrics" or "neonatal" or "congenital." Original articles with primary patient outcomes were included in the data summary. Four types of evaluation methods (classification, diagnostics, physical assessment, and functional outcome) were distinguished among treatment management groups. Descriptive statistics and 1-way ANOVA were applied to compare the data summaries among specific groups. RESULTS: Of 2836 articles initially identified, 307 were included in the analysis, with 198 articles (9646 patients) reporting results after surgical treatment, 70 articles (4434 patients) reporting results after medical treatment, and 39 articles (4247 patients) reporting results after combined surgical and medical treatment. Among medical practitioners who treat NBPP, there was equivalence in usage of classification, diagnostic, and physical assessment tools (that focused on the Body Function and Structures measure of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health [ICF]). However, there was discordance in the functional outcome measures that focus on ICF levels of Activity and Participation. Of the 126 reported evaluation methods, only a few (the Active Movement Scale, Toronto Scale Score, Mallet Scale, Assisting Hand Assessment, and Pediatric Outcomes Data Collection Instrument) are specifically validated for evaluating the NBPP population. CONCLUSIONS: In this review, the authors demonstrate disparities in the use of NBPP evaluation instruments in the current literature. Additionally, valid and reliable evaluation instruments specifically for the NBPP population are significantly lacking, manifesting in difficulties with evaluating the overall impact and effectiveness of clinical treatments in a consistent and comparative manner, extending across the various subspecialties that are involved in the treatment of patients with NBPP. The authors suggest that all ICF domains should be considered, and future efforts should include consideration of spontaneous (not practitioner-elicited) use of the affected arm in activities of daily living with attention to the psychosocial impact of the disablement.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,023 | 0,108 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,009 | 0,008 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,031 | 0,028 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,004 | 0,004 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,006 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».