Modified constraint-induced therapy for children with hemiplegic cerebral palsy: A randomized trial
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Aim: Conventional constraint-based therapies are intensive and demanding to implement, particularly for children. Modified forms of constraint-based therapies that are family-centred may be more acceptable and feasible for families of children with cerebral palsy (CP)-but require rigorous evaluation using randomized trials. The aim of this study was to determine the effects of modified constraint-induced therapy compared with intensive occupational therapy on activities of daily living and upper limb outcomes in children with hemiplegic CP.\nMethod: In this assessor-blinded pragmatic randomized trial, 50 children (27 males, 23 females; age range 19mo–7y 10mo) with hemiplegic CP were randomized using a concealed allocation procedure to one of two 8-week interventions: intensive occupational therapy (n=25), or modified constraint-induced therapy (n=25). Manual Ability Classification System (MACS) levels of the participants were, level I n=2, II n=37, III n=8, and level IV n=1; Gross Motor Function Classification System (GMFCS) levels were, level I n=33, level II n=15, and level III n=1. Participants were recruited through three specialist CP centres in Australia and randomized between January 2008 and April 2010. Children randomized to modified constraint-induced therapy wore a mitt on the unaffected hand for 2 hours each day, during which time the children participated in targeted therapy. The primary outcome was the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM – measured on a 10-point scale) at completion of therapy. Other outcome measures were Goal Attainment Scaling, Assisting Hand Assessment, Pediatric Motor Activity Log, Modified Ashworth Scale, Modified Tardieu Scale, and a parent questionnaire. Assessments were carried out at 10 weeks and 6 months following randomization.\nResults: All participants were included in the analysis. Between-group differences for all outcomes were neither clinically important nor statistically significant. The mean difference in COPM was 0.3 (95% confidence interval [CI] −0.8 to 1.4; p=0.61) and mean difference in COPM satisfaction was 0.1 (95% CI −1.1 to 1.2; p=0.90). Minor adverse events were reported by five of the 25 participants in the modified constraint-induced therapy group and by one of the 25 in the intensive occupational therapy group. All adverse events were related to participants’ lack of acceptance of therapy.\nInterpretation: Modified constraint-induced therapy is no more effective than intensive occupational therapy for improving completion of activities of daily living or upper limb function in children with hemiplegic CP.
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 distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
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 tête enseignante, 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 ».