ArticleFrontiers in pediatrics2024
Precision measurement of rehabilitation interventions-a secondary analysis of motor error in a clinical trial with young children with cerebral palsy.
Article in Frontiers in pediatrics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Exploring the Potential of Scales to Assess Different Types of Ataxia: Meta-review.Cerebellum (London, England) · 2026Review
- How infants learn (to walk): Transitions are a fundamental component of practice.Developmental psychology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: The delivery of precision medicine in rehabilitation will require not only precise measurement of participant response, but also precise measurement of the "ingredients" of intervention and their dose. As an example, we report the measurement of motor error in two treatment groups from a randomized controlled trial in toddlers (mean age 26.3 months) with cerebral palsy (CP). Our objective was to measure the type and amount of motor error during physical therapy sessions in young children with CP. Methods: Participants were stratified by motor function and age and randomly allocated to "conventional" physical therapy that generally prevented falls or to an intervention that encouraged error experience by not preventing falls (experimental group). Baseline motor and cognitive function were measured using the Gross Motor Function Measure-66 (GMFM-66) and Bayley 3 cognitive subscale (B3-C) prior to randomization. Randomly selected video recorded therapy sessions were manually coded to identify losses of balance defined as Results: Average number of losses of balance per session were higher in the experimental group than the conventional group due to significantly greater falls. Saves were infrequent in both groups but were also significantly higher in the experimental group. Average number of rescues did not differ between groups. In the experimental group, greater frequency of falls was significantly related to GMFM-66. In both groups, greater frequency of saves was related to GMFM-66. Neither total losses of balance per session nor rescues were related to GMFM-66 in either group. There were no significant relationships between losses of balance and baseline cognition in either group, except greater frequency of saves was related to higher cognitive ability in the experimental group. Discussion: Our observations suggest that motor error experience is lower in toddlers with CP compared to peers with typical development but can be manipulated to higher doses of error during therapy sessions. Future work should investigate the relationship between type and amount of error experience and rehabilitation outcomes, as well as other "ingredients" of rehabilitation therapy. Tools to automate the precise measurement of intervention content are necessary for broad scale implementation.
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.