Treatment and re/habilitation of children with cerebral palsy in India: a scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To describe the nature and extent of the literature addressing the medical and its re/habilitative management of cerebral palsy (CP) in India. METHOD: Online worldwide scholarly databases, research hosting directories, Indian publishing houses, and grey literature were used to identify papers published between 2005 and 2016. We retrieved 144 English language papers that described the medical and rehabilitative management of Indian children with CP. RESULTS: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed research designs are published by a variety of health care professionals in India. Intervention (45%) and observational studies (30%) predominate. Outcomes were categorized using the World Health Organization's International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health framework, with body structure and function most reported and activity/participation least reported; 57% described its re/habilitation interventions and 43% were medical interventions. INTERPRETATION: There is a substantial body of CP research in India that focuses on interventions to reduce impairments, with minimal attention given to activities and participation, environmental, and personal factors. Twenty-six per cent of studies are published in what appear to be 'predatory journals'. This paper serves as an alert about the presence of 'predatory journals' in medicine that may introduce publication bias, which can distort results reported in those studies individually, or from conclusions drawn in reviews that contain those studies. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS: Cerebral palsy research in India focuses on interventions to reduce impairment. Activities, participation, and environmental factors are minimally addressed. Quantitative studies are more common than qualitative studies. Many Indian studies are published in journals that are not indexed in worldwide databases of scholarly journals.
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 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".