Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33543078›Full record

ReviewArchives of rehabilitation research and clinical translation2020

Exploring the Unmet Need for Technology to Promote Motor Ability in Children Younger Than 5 Years of Age: A Systematic Review.

Amanda J Arnold, Joshua L Haworth, Victor Olivares Moran, Ahmad Abulhasan, Noah Steinbuch, Elena Kokkoni

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Archives of rehabilitation research and clinical translation, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 27% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Mobility device use in children with cerebral palsy.Developmental medicine and child neurology · 2025
    Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Amanda J ArnoldDepartment of Bioengineering, University of California Riverside, Riverside, California.
Joshua L HaworthDepartment of Bioengineering, University of California Riverside, Riverside, California.
Victor Olivares MoranDepartment of Biology, University of California Riverside, Riverside, California.
Ahmad AbulhasanDepartment of Biology, University of California Riverside, Riverside, California.
Noah SteinbuchDepartment of Biology, University of California Riverside, Riverside, California.
Elena KokkoniDepartment of Bioengineering, University of California Riverside, Riverside, California.
University of California, Riverside · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo (1) identify types of technology that promote motor ability in children younger than 5 years of age, (2) report on the type of support these devices provide, and (3) evaluate their potential for use in the community (outside of the laboratory or clinic). DATA SOURCES: A literature search of PubMed was conducted in February 2019 using specific terms, including child, rehabilitation, movement, and instrumentation. STUDY SELECTION: The search yielded 451 peer-reviewed articles, which were screened by multiple reviewers. Articles that described the use of devices for the purpose of motor rehabilitation and/or assistance (regardless of device type or body part targeted) in the age range of 0-5 years were eligible for inclusion. DATA EXTRACTION: In conformity with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, final stage data extraction consisted of full text readings where each article was reviewed twice by 3 independent reviewers. DATA SYNTHESIS: About half of the devices available (46%) for children younger than 5 years of age are orthotics and corrective casting devices. There are more facilitative (ie, power mobility devices) than inhibitive (ie, casting) technologies being used. Approximately 60% of the devices are designed for use by a single body part. Walking is the most common motor skill addressed. Although most of the devices were used to some degree outside of the laboratory or clinic, most of the devices available are considered investigative and are not available for commercial purchase.

conclusionsMany types of pediatric devices to assist movement exist, but the current scope of employed devices is limited. There is a need for developing technology that allows for, if not supports, high-dosage, early, and variable motor practice that can take place in community settings.

Indexed as

ChildDIY, Do-It-YourselfInfantMotor skillsRehabilitationTechnology

Identifiers

PMID33543078
PMCPMC7853335
OpenAlexW3014435058

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.