Assessments and Interventions for Spasticity in Infants With or at High Risk for Cerebral Palsy: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The majority of children with cerebral palsy develop spasticity, which interferes with motor development, function, and participation. This systematic review appraised current evidence regarding assessments and interventions for spasticity in children aged less than two years with or at high risk for cerebral palsy and integrated findings with parent preferences. METHODS: Five databases (CINAHL, EMBASE, OVID/Medline, SCOPUS, and PsycINFO) were searched. Included articles were screened using PRISMA guidelines. Quality of the evidence was reviewed by two independent reviewers using Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies, second edition (QUADAS-2), the RTI Item Bank on Risk of Bias and Precision of Observational Studies (RTI), or The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomized trials (RoB). An online survey was conducted regarding parent preferences through social media channels. RESULTS: Twelve articles met inclusion criteria. No high-quality assessment tool emerged for this population. Six interventions (botulinum toxin-A, orthotic use, radial extracorporeal shock wave therapy, erythropoietic stimulating agents, medical cannabis, and homeopathy) were identified. There was low-quality evidence for the use of botulinum toxin-A and radial extracorporeal shock wave therapy to improve short-term outcomes. Survey respondents indicated that spasticity assessments and interventions are highly valued, with nonpharmacologic interventions ranked most preferably. CONCLUSIONS: Further research is needed to validate assessments for spasticity in children younger than two years. Conditional recommendations can be made for botulinum toxin-A and radial extracorporeal shock wave therapy based on low level of evidence to reduce spasticity in children aged less than two years.
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 | 0.003 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".