Efficacy and Effectiveness of Physical Therapy in Enhancing Postural Control in Children With Cerebral Palsy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this article was to conduct a systematic review of studies that examined the efficacy and effectiveness of postural control intervention strategies for children with CP. Only physical therapy interventions were included, e.g. adaptive seating devices, ankle foot orthoses, neurodevelopmental treatment. A multifaceted search strategy was employed to identify all potential studies published between 1990 and 2004. The search strategy included electronic databases, reference list scanning, author and citation tracking of relevant studies, and hand searching of pediatric physical therapy journals and conference proceedings. Twelve studies (1991-2004), comprising ten group design studies and two single subject studies, met our inclusion criteria. A variety of age ranges and severity of children with cerebral palsy (n=132) participated in the studies. The study quality scores ranged from 2 to 7 (total possible range of 0 to 7) with a median score of 5.5 and a mode of 6. As was true in an earlier systematic review on adaptive seating, most of the 12 'experimental' studies published since 1990 that were aimed at evaluating the effectiveness of postural control strategies provided lower levels of evidence, i.e. Sackett Levels III to V. Additional studies with stronger designs are needed to establish that postural control interventions for children with CP are effective.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".