MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2170874318 · doi:10.1177/0269215513488122

Clinical tools that measure sitting posture, seated postural control or functional abilities in children with motor impairments: a systematic review

2013· review· en· W2170874318 on OpenAlexafffund
Debra A. Field, Roslyn Livingstone

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Rehabilitation · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCerebral Palsy and Movement Disorders
Canadian institutionsSunny Hill Health Centre for ChildrenUniversity of British Columbia
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsSittingPsychological interventionData extractionPhysical medicine and rehabilitationReliability (semiconductor)PsychologyPhysical therapyInternational Classification of Functioning, Disability and HealthMEDLINEApplied psychologyRehabilitationMedicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To identify and critically appraise clinical measurement tools used to assess sitting posture, seated postural control or functional abilities for children with motor impairment who are candidates for seating interventions. DATA SOURCES: Searches were run in 15 electronic databases along with hand searching. The search included articles published in English to December 2011. REVIEW METHODS: Key terms included: posture, sitting, sitting posture, seated posture, seated postural control, sitting position, seating, wheelchair(s), outcome and assess(ment). The PRISMA statement was followed with inclusion criteria set a priori. Two reviewers independently screened titles, reviewed abstracts and identified full-text articles that met criteria. Data extraction included tool description and clinical utility. Two quality-rating scales were used to evaluate conduct of the studies and psychometric properties of the tools. RESULTS: Of the 497 titles found in the search, 29 full-text articles met the inclusion criteria and 19 tools were identified. Tools represented all components of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health for Children and Youth (ICF-CY), with emphasis on body structure and function and activity components. Evidence supporting reliability and validity varied, with small sample sizes influencing quality ratings. Evidence of the tools' reliability was more prevalent than evidence of the tools' validity. Only four tools reported on responsiveness, an important consideration for evaluating change. Little information on clinical utility was provided. CONCLUSION: Although a number of tools are available, evidence supporting their use for seating interventions is limited, as is the evidence supporting the strength of their measurement properties. Few tools address participation, environmental factors or the child's and family's perspective.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.080
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.084

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.080
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0120.007
Bibliometrics0.0160.016
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0030.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.096
GPT teacher head0.402
Teacher spread0.306 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations26
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical RehabilitationSame topicCerebral Palsy and Movement DisordersFrench-language works237,207