Effectiveness of Exercise on Functional Mobility in Adults with Cerebral Palsy: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: We identified evidence evaluating the effect of exercise on functional mobility in adults (aged 18 y or older) with cerebral palsy (CP). Method: An exhaustive search was conducted using the electronic databases PubMed, MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, SPORTDiscus, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from the earliest available evidence (1975) to the present (January 2016) for studies whose participants were ambulatory adults with CP receiving conservative treatment to address functional mobility limitations. Two independent reviewers agreed on the eligibility, inclusion, and level of evidence of each study. The Maastricht-Amsterdam List (MAL) was used to assess evidence quality. Results: Five of the six studies included were randomized controlled trials, and one was a pre–post case series. Interventions included whole-body vibration, treadmill training without body-weight support, rhythmic auditory stimulation, dynamic balance and gait activities, progressive resistance training, and interactive serious gaming for balance. All studies were considered high quality, as indicated by their MAL scores. Four studies showed no statistical difference and trivial effect sizes between the intervention and the control group. Rhythmic auditory stimulation and interactive serious gaming were found to be statistically significant in benefiting adults with CP. Conclusions: Evidence of the effect of exercise on functional mobility for ambulatory adults with CP is lacking. A need exists for quality research to determine the best interventions for adults with CP to maximize functional mobility.
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 | 0.005 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".