MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4310776032 · doi:10.1111/dmcn.15435

Supported‐standing interventions for children and young adults with non‐ambulant cerebral palsy: A scoping review

2022· review· en· W4310776032 on OpenAlexaff
Lynore J. McLean, Ginny Paleg, Roslyn Livingstone

Bibliographic record

VenueDevelopmental Medicine & Child Neurology · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCerebral Palsy and Movement Disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaSunny Hill Health Centre for Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCerebral palsyPsychosocialPsychological interventionGross Motor Function Classification SystemDescriptive statisticsPsychologyMedicineIntervention (counseling)MEDLINEQualitative researchPhysical therapyFamily medicineClinical psychologyGerontologyNursingPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIM: To describe the evidence, outcomes, and lived experience of supported standing for children and young adults with cerebral palsy aged 25 years or younger, classified in Gross Motor Function Classification System levels IV and V. METHOD: This scoping review included searches in eight electronic databases and manual searching from database inception to May 2020 and updated on 21st February 2022. Two of three reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts and extracted and appraised data. Methodological quality and risk of bias were appraised using tools appropriate to study type. Content analysis and frequency effect sizes were calculated for qualitative and descriptive evidence. RESULTS: From 126 full-text references, 59 citations (one study was reported over two citations) were included: 16 systematic reviews, 17 intervention studies reporting over 18 citations, eight analytical cross-sectional studies, five descriptive cross-sectional/survey studies, five qualitative studies, and one mixed-methods study were identified, along with six clinical guidelines. Maintenance of bone mineral density and contracture prevention outcomes were supported by the most experimental studies and evidence syntheses, while evidence supporting other outcomes was primarily quasi-experimental or descriptive. Qualitative evidence suggests that programmes are influenced by attitudes, device, child, and environmental factors. INTERPRETATION: Individualized assessment and prescription are essential to match personal and environmental needs. Although experimental evidence is limited due to many factors, lived-experience and cohort data suggest that successful integration of standing programmes into age-appropriate and meaningful activities may enhance function, participation, and overall health. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS: Supported-standing interventions may provide an important psychosocial and physical change of position. Supported standing is not passive for those classified in Gross Motor Function Classification System level IV or V. Supported standing may enhance social participation, functional abilities, and fitness. Children need choice in where and when to stand.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.043
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.051

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.043
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.005
Bibliometrics0.0090.010
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.043
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.291 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations21
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDevelopmental Medicine & Child NeurologySame topicCerebral Palsy and Movement DisordersFrench-language works237,207