ArticlePhysical & occupational therapy in pediatrics2021
Scoping Review of Judgment-Based Measures of Ambulation with Assistive Devices for Children and Youth.
Article in Physical & occupational therapy in pediatrics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Promoting Functional Mobility in Individuals with Non-Ambulatory Cerebral Palsy: A Scoping Review of the MOVE Programme.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
aimTo identify available judgment-based measures of ambulation with assistive devices for the purpose of examining item content and responses to aid in the expansion of the Pediatric Evaluation of Disability Inventory Computer Adaptive Test (PEDI-CAT) Mobility Domain.
methodsPubMed and CINAHL databases were used to identify measures meeting the following criteria: 1) applicable for children/youth; 2) self-report, proxy-report, or interview administration; and 3) assistive device (walker, cane, crutches, gait trainer) use specified or considered with responses. Population, administration, respondent(s), items, and responses were compiled. Item content was categorized and response scales grouped by type.
resultsFifteen measures met inclusion criteria. Measures included child and proxy-report. Item categories included Surfaces, Steps/Stairs, Dual Tasks, Negotiation of Environment, Distance, and Time. Only two measures distinguished between device type within items. One measure specified gait trainers. "Difficulty" and "Assistance" were the most frequently used response scales.
conclusionsAvailable measures have content examining device use; however, none of the measures are comprehensive, devices are not consistently specified, and responses are imprecise. Items with well-defined responses for measuring a child's ambulation with an assistive device are needed for clinical practice, research, and program evaluation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.