ArticleHeliyon2022
Systematic review of reviews on Activities of Daily Living measures for children with developmental disabilities.
Article in Heliyon, 2022. 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.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: There seems to be a lack of consensus on the concept and domains of Activities of Daily Living (ADL) measured among children and adolescents with developmental disabilities (DD), despite a significant number of existing measures of ADL and associated constructs, and two prevailing theoretical frameworks (i.e., the cognitive-social-practical framework, and the activity-and-participation framework). Aims: This systematic review (SR) aims to identify articles that systematically reviewed measures of ADL for children and adolescents aged 7-18 years with DD to evaluate the quality of included articles, and describe the measures and domains identified. Methods: and Procedures: Searches were conducted in PubMed®, Academic Search Complete® (EBSCOhost), Education Source Search® (EBSCOhost), ERIC® (EBSCOhost), and PsychInfo® (EBSCOhost). 14,931 articles were identified, and two researchers completed title screening, abstract screening, and full-text screening, with disagreements resolved. Out of these 14,931 articles, fourteen were included, which resulted in a total of 163 ADL measures. Out of the 163 ADL measures, forty-eight met the criteria and were included for analysis. PRISMA and COSMIN checklists were used to appraise the methodological quality of the included articles. Outcomes and results: Results indicated that most of the 14 systematic review articles did not provide information on instrument development and content validity of their included measures. Analysis of the identified 48 measures of ADL and its associated constructs revealed heterogeneity in domains covered, although there were seven domains that were most often included. Conclusions and implications: Implications in terms of practice, research, and policy are further discussed.
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.