Prevalence of fatigue in adolescents and adults with cerebral palsy: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Fatigue is a common problem for adults with cerebral palsy (CP) and may be related to the decline in physical function, including the loss of the ability to walk.Objective To estimate the overall prevalence of fatigue in adolescents and adults with cerebral palsy.Methods MEDLINE (OVID), EMBASE (OVID), CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Web of Science electronic databases were searched in September 2021. The review protocol was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO), registration CRD42021275596. Two authors independently screened studies according to Preferred Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, and the methodological quality of included studies was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Prevalence Critical Appraisal Checklist.Results Of the 1022 studies identified, fifteen met the inclusion criteria. Study quality assessment was performed using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Prevalence Critical Appraisal Checklist, with scores ranging from 4 out of 10 to 10 out of 10. Pooled prevalence estimates for twelve studies were 52.9% (95% confidence interval [CI]40.9–64.6). Fatigue was higher in people with bilateral CP than unilateral CP, and higher in people classified as Gross Motor Function Classification System (GMFCS) levels III-V.Conclusion More than half of the adults with CP (52.9%) reported living with fatigue. Adults with CP frequently reported fatigue that may lead to activity limitations and/or restrictions. Fatigue was strongly correlated with pain, depression, and reduced quality of life. Assessment and appropriate fatigue management techniques are necessary to enhance capacity for everyday functioning 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 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 | 0.019 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.017 | 0.037 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".