MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4361198963 · doi:10.3390/disabilities3020012

Use of Overground Supported-Stepping Devices for Non-Ambulant Children, Adolescents, and Adults with Cerebral Palsy: A Scoping Review

2023· review· en· W4361198963 on OpenAlexafffund
Roslyn Livingstone, Ginny Paleg

Bibliographic record

VenueDisabilities · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCerebral Palsy and Movement Disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersUniversity of British Columbia
KeywordsCerebral palsyGross Motor Function Classification SystemPhysical medicine and rehabilitationPsychologyTrunkPhysical therapyRandomized controlled trialObservational studyGross motor skillAutonomyDevelopmental psychologyMotor skillMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Individuals with cerebral palsy functioning at Gross Motor Function Classification System (GMFCS) levels IV and V are unable to use hand-held walkers and require supported-stepping devices with trunk and pelvic support to allow overground stepping in natural environments. This scoping review explored what is known about the use of supported-stepping devices with individuals functioning at GMFCS IV or V. Comprehensive database and hand searches were completed in December 2022. Of 225 unique citations, 68 met the inclusion criteria: 10 syntheses and 58 primary studies including randomized, non-randomized, qualitative, observational and case study designs. Primary studies included 705 unique individuals functioning at GMFCS IV or V, aged 9 months to 47.7 years, while surveys and qualitative studies included 632 therapists. No new experimental studies have been published since previous reviews, however, lived experience and descriptive data suggest that upright positioning and mobility in supported-stepping devices have psycho-social significance with positive impacts on individual self-esteem and autonomy, as well as influencing the perception of others. Improved head and trunk control, use of hands, stepping and independent mobility may promote fitness, functioning, fun, friends, family and future, although environmental and physical challenges may limit use in adolescence and adulthood. Further research on all aspects of supported-stepping device use with individuals at GMFCS IV/V is warranted.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.029
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 score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.029
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.004
Bibliometrics0.0110.012
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.070
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.273 · 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

Citations14
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDisabilitiesSame topicCerebral Palsy and Movement DisordersFrench-language works237,207