Horseback riding as therapy for children with cerebral palsy: is there evidence of its effectiveness?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A systematic review of the literature on horseback riding therapy as an intervention for children with cerebral palsy (CP) was carried out. The terms horse, riding, hippotherapy, horseback riding therapy, equine movement therapy, and cerebral palsy were searched in electronic databases and hand searched. Retrieved articles were rated for methodological quality using PEDro scoring to assess the internal validity of randomized trials and the Newcastle Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale to assess cohort studies. PICO questioning (Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcomes) was used to identify questions of interest to clinicians for outcomes within the context of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. Levels of evidence were then accorded each PICO question. There is Level 2a evidence that hippotherapy is effective for treating muscle symmetry in the trunk and hip and that therapeutic horseback riding is effective for improved gross motor function when compared with regular therapy or time on a waiting list. No studies addressed participation outcomes.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".