ArticleHeliyon2024
Modeling the distribution and progression of motor ability among children with cerebral palsy: An analysis of three reference centile sets.
Article in Heliyon, 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.
- Longitudinal reference centiles for the Gross Motor Function Measure-66 in children and adolescents with cerebral palsy.Developmental medicine and child neurology · 2026Article
- Gross Motor Development by Age and Functional Level in Children with Cerebral Palsy from 6 Months to 17 Years-A Norwegian Population-Based Registry Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Reference centiles describing gross motor function in children with cerebral palsy (CP) are used in clinical and research settings to guide treatments and evaluate interventions. However, it is unknown how existing references generalize to populations in novel settings. Aims: The aim of this study is to evaluate the cross-sectional and longitudinal performance of three reference centiles to describe the motor function of children with CP aged 2-12 years at a large urban US pediatric hospital through a retrospective observational study. Methods: and Procedures: We assessed cross-sectional performance by ranking our clinical population by quartile distributions described by the references. We assessed longitudinal performance by analyzing the distribution of prediction errors and correlations between predictions and observed scores. Outcomes and Results: For cross-sectional distribution, the reference centiles by Hanna more closely described our population than those by Duran. For longitudinal progression, prediction error was less than 6 GMFM points for most records at 24-, 12-, and 6-month time scales for all three sets of reference centiles, but higher at a 48-month time scale. Prediction errors increased at younger ages and higher motor ability. Conclusions and implications: Despite differences in cross-sectional performance, all three reference centiles achieved similar longitudinal performance and are sufficient for most clinical and research uses. Caution should be used when applying these curves to locations with different standards of care.
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.