Effectiveness of Stretch Interventions for Children With Neuromuscular Disabilities: Evidence-Based Recommendations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To determine whether casting, orthoses, stretching, or supported standing programs are effective in improving or maintaining body functions and structures, activity, or participation in children with neuromuscular disabilities. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted using 6 electronic databases to identify Level 1 and 2 studies investigating stretch interventions for children aged 0 to 19 years with neuromuscular disabilities. Interventions were coded using the International Classification of Function and rated with Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Evaluation, the Oxford Levels of Evidence, and the Evidence Alert Traffic Light System. RESULTS: Sixteen studies evaluated the effectiveness of stretch interventions. Low-grade evidence supports casting temporarily increasing ankle range of motion, orthoses improving gait parameters while they are worn, and supported standing programs improving bone mineral density. CONCLUSION: There is limited evidence suggesting stretch interventions benefit body functions and structures. There is inconclusive evidence to support or refute stretching interventions for preventing contractures or impacting a child's activity or participation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Prospero CRD42014013807.
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 | 0.010 | 0.054 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".