Outcomes of selective dorsal rhizotomy in ambulatory children and young people with cerebral palsy: A scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To identify outcomes reported after selective dorsal rhizotomy (SDR) in ambulant children and young people with cerebral palsy in different domains of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF). METHOD: A scoping review using the JBI Scoping Review methodology was conducted. Six databases were searched for literature published between 1993 and 2024. RESULTS: A total of 214 published papers met the inclusion criteria. Outcomes under the body function and structure domain were most frequently investigated (n = 199, 93%), followed by activity (n = 123, 58%) and participation (n = 33, 15%) across all studies. Quality of life was reported in 16 (8%) studies, and four (2%) studies mentioned individualized goals for SDR surgery. A combination of validated measures and subjective outcomes was used, with 119 (56%) studies reporting outcomes in two or more domains. INTERPRETATION: Impairment-based outcomes remain the primary focus in SDR research. A small shift in emphasis towards participant-reported outcome measures has been seen in recent years. Few studies reported on the impact of personal and environmental factors. Future SDR studies need to incorporate all domains of the ICF to enhance understanding and capture holistic, meaningful changes in the lives of children and young people with cerebral palsy and their families.
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 | 0.005 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".