ArticleDevelopmental medicine and child neurology2025
Mobility device use in children with cerebral palsy.
Article in Developmental medicine and child neurology, 2025. 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.
- Pediatric spasticity in Brazil: insights from a neurosurgical referral center.Child's nervous system : ChNS : official journal of the International Society for Pediatric Neurosurgery · 2026Article
- Mobility device use in children with cerebral palsy.Developmental medicine and child neurology · 2025Article
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
Abstract
aimsTo quantify the number and types of mobility devices used by children with cerebral palsy (CP) and explore the relationships between Gross Motor Functional Classification System (GMFCS) level, age, insurance, income, and number and types of devices.
methodThis was a secondary analysis of a cohort from a larger randomized controlled trial. Data from 89 children with CP (56.2% male and 43.8% female; mean = 4 years 11 months; SD = 2 years 0 months; range 2 years 0 months-8 years 10 months) were collected from electronic medical records, parent-completed medical history questionnaires, and the Hollingshead Four-Factor Index. The analysis included quasi-Poisson and logistical regressions.
resultsMost children had Medicaid insurance (83.2%). All income and GMFCS levels were represented. The most common mobility devices were lower-extremity orthoses (75.3%). The number of devices used increased by 8.2% for each 1-year increase in age. Children classified in GMFCS level V used 5.1, 2.9, and 1.6 times more mobility devices than children classified in GMFCS levels I, II, and III respectively. GMFCS level also predicted the use of wheelchairs, bath chairs, and standers. Income and insurance were not significant.
interpretationChildren used more devices as age and GMFCS level increased. Device access is an important public health initiative.
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.