ArticlemedRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences2023
Uncertainties regarding cerebral palsy diagnosis: opportunities to operationalize the consensus definition.
Article in medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
Authors and funding
9 authors at 8 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Background and Objectives: Cerebral palsy (CP), the most common motor disability of childhood, is variably diagnosed. We hypothesized that child neurologists and neurodevelopmentalists, often on the frontlines of CP diagnosis in North America, harbor uncertainties regarding the practical application of the most recent CP consensus definition from 2006. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional survey of child neurologists and neurodevelopmentalists at the 2022 Child Neurology Society Annual Meeting. Attendees were provided the 2006 CP consensus definition and asked whether they had any uncertainties about the practical application of the definition across four hypothetical clinical vignettes. Results: Of 230 attendees, 164 responded to the closing survey questions (71%). 145/164 (88%) expressed at least one uncertainty regarding the clinical application of the 2006 definition. Overwhelmingly, these areas of uncertainty focused on: 1) Age, both with regards to the minimum age of diagnosis and the maximum age of brain disturbance or motor symptom onset, (67/164, 41%), and 2) Interpretation of the term "non-progressive" (48/164, 29%). The vast majority of respondents (157/164, 96%) answered 'Yes' to the question: Do you think we should revise the 2006 consensus definition of CP? Discussion: We propose that the uncertainties we identified could be addressed by operationalizing the 2006 consensus definition to support a more uniform CP diagnosis. To address the most common CP diagnostic uncertainties we identified, we propose 3 points of clarification based on the available literature: 1) Motor symptoms/signs should be present by 2 years old; 2) CP can and should be diagnosed as early as possible, even if activity limitation is not yet present, if motor symptoms/signs can be reasonably predicted to yield activity limitation (e.g. by using standardized examination instruments, Brain MRI, and a suggestive clinical history); and 3) The clinical motor disability phenotype should be non-progressive through 5 years old. We anticipate that operationalizing the 2006 definition of CP in this manner could clarify the uncertainties we identified among child neurologists and neurodevelopmentalists and reduce the diagnostic variability that currently exists.
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.