Comparison of the effectiveness of Bobath and Vojta techniques in babies with Down syndrome: Randomized controlled study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aim: This study was performed to compare the effectiveness of two different early physiotherapy approaches in babies with Down syndrome (DS). Material and Methods: A total of 23 babies with DS aged between 0-24 months were included in the study. The babies were randomly divided into two groups: the Bobath-therapy (BT) group included 12 babies (6 girls, 6 boys) and the Vojta-technique (VT) group included 11 babies (4 girls,7 boys). A total of 12 sessions of physiotherapy were applied to the babies twice a week for 6 weeks. All evaluations were done before and after therapy. The Alberta Infant Motor Scale (AIMS) was used for assessing motor development level of babies, the Beck Depression Scale (BDS) was used for assessing emotional status of mothers, and the Nottingham Health Profile (NHP) was used for assessing the quality of life of mothers of babies. Results: Mean age of babies, AIMS, BDS and NHP scores were similar in both groups before the therapy (p>0.05). A significant improvement was detected in AIMS scores after therapy in both BT (p=0.001)and VT groups (p=0.001). The mean changes in the AIMS score between groups were 8.336.34 for BT, 7.273.46 for VT group (p>0.05). No statistically significant difference was detected between groups with regard to changes in AIMS (p=0.629), BDS (p=0.642) and NHP (p=0.726) scores. Discussion: Early treatment methods, BT and VT approaches, both improved motor performance levels in infants with DS, as well as improved mothers' emotional state and quality of life.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".