MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407955481 · doi:10.21037/pm-24-42

Physical therapy for deficits associated with chemotherapy induced peripheral neuropathy in children with cancer: a systematic review

2025· review· en· W4407955481 on OpenAlexaff
Paula A. Ospina, Mona M. Al Onazi, Margaret L. McNeely

Bibliographic record

VenuePediatric Medicine · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer Treatment and Pharmacology
Canadian institutionsAlberta Health ServicesUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPeripheral neuropathyMedicineChemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathyChemotherapySystematic reviewCancer therapyOncologyCancerInternal medicineMEDLINEEndocrinologyDiabetes mellitus

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN) is a frequent side effect in children undergoing chemotherapy, causing impairments that often lead to limitations in daily activities and restrictions in participation. Physical therapy (PT) may help maintain and restore the physical function impaired by CIPN, as well as maximize independence in daily life activities. Although, there is a paucity of high-quality studies evaluating PT interventions for CIPN as a clinical entity in the pediatric population, some studies have examined PT interventions for impairments and symptoms resulting from CIPN. This review aims to synthesize the evidence on PT interventions for CIPN symptoms and deficits in children with cancer. Methods: A systematic review was conducted with the following PICOS (population, intervention, comparison intervention, outcomes, study design) approach: children with cancer, PT interventions, control group or standard care, and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) comprising CIPN symptoms and deficits, range of motion, muscle strength, motor function, balance, gait, functional mobility, foot posture, pain, and adverse events outcomes. Searches were conducted in five electronic databases (Medline, Embase, CINAHL, CENTRAL, and Scopus), reference lists, grey literature, and clinical trial websites in February 2024. Two authors reviewed the studies, extracted information, and appraised the quality using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials (RoB-2). Outcomes were analyzed descriptively. Results: Nine full-text studies met the inclusion criteria, including a total of 439 participants. Six studies were RCTs, one was a pilot RCT with preliminary results only, one was a CCT, and one was a pilot CCT. The quality appraisal revealed that all studies had a high risk of bias. None of the studies included a measure of CIPN symptoms and deficits (primary outcome); however, all studies included at least one outcome that assessed an impairment resulting from CIPN. Although we found benefits for some physical function outcomes, given the heterogeneity of interventions, the evidence is not at a stage to provide recommendations for clinical practice. Conclusions: There is a lack of high-quality research focused on CIPN in children living with, and beyond cancer. Consensus on a core outcome set to measure CIPN in children would allow for comparison of findings across future studies.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.064
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.370
Teacher spread0.337 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePediatric MedicineSame topicCancer Treatment and PharmacologyFrench-language works237,207