Ankle foot orthoses for young children with cerebral palsy: a scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To describe research on outcomes associated with early Ankle Foot Orthosis (AFO) use, AFO use patterns, and parent and clinician perspectives on AFO use among young children with cerebral palsy. METHOD: Arksey and O'Malley's five-stage method was used to conduct a scoping review. MEDLINE (Ovid), PubMed, CINAHL, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, EMBASE, PEDro, Web of Science and Scopus were searched for studies evaluating AFO use with children under the age of six years. Descriptive information was extracted and outcomes categorized according to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF). Quality assessments were conducted to evaluate methodological rigor. RESULTS: Nineteen articles were included in the review; 14 focused on body functions and structures, seven on activity level outcomes and no studies addressed participation outcomes. Evaluations of the effects of AFOs on gross motor skills other than gait were limited. Overall, the body of evidence is comprised of methodologically weak studies with common threats to validity including inadequate descriptions of study protocols, AFO construction, and comparison interventions. CONCLUSION: Research evaluating the effects of AFOs on age-appropriate, functional outcomes including transitional movements, floor mobility and participation in early childhood settings is needed to inform practice regarding early orthotic prescription. Implications for rehabilitationLack of rigorous evidence about the effects of AFOs in young children limits the ability of research to guide practice in pediatric rehabilitation.More rigorous research that evaluates a broader range of age-appropriate outcomes, including those focused on participation in meaningful activities, could further inform clinical practice.While clinicians often discuss expectations and goals with individual families, qualitative research that provides more insight into the experiences of families could guide AFO prescription and monitoring practices.
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 | 0.006 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 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".