ArticleDevelopmental medicine and child neurology2026
Outcomes and standardized tools in telehealth physical therapy for children with cerebral palsy: A scoping review using the ICF framework.
Article in Developmental medicine and child neurology, 2026. 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.
- Outcomes and standardized tools in telehealth physical therapy for children with cerebral palsy: A scoping review using the ICF framework.Developmental medicine and child neurology · 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimTo identify the outcomes and standardized tools used to measure changes following telehealth-delivered physical therapy interventions in children and young people with cerebral palsy, within the framework of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health domains, and to describe how these tools were administered.
methodThis scoping review followed the steps of the JBI and identified studies on telehealth-delivered physical therapy interventions in children and young people up to 20 years old using standardized assessment tools. Searches were conducted in MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, Scopus, Web of Science, PEDro, Lilacs, and grey literature, with no date or language restrictions.
resultsFourteen studies (625 participants, age range 6 months-20 years, all levels of the Gross Motor Function Classification System) met inclusion criteria. Outcomes were primarily in the activity domain (59.3%), followed by body structure and function (29.6%) and participation (22.2%) domains. Thirty standardized tools were used; the most frequent were the Assisting Hand Assessment (n = 5) and Gross Motor Function Measure (n = 3). Most standardized tools were applied in-person (68.2%), while others used mixed methods (telehealth and in-person: 18.2%) or did not specify the mode of administration (6.8%). Only two studies administered all tools by telehealth.
interpretationThe outcomes and standardized tools identified in this review target the activity domain, reflecting parental priorities. In-person assessments remain the preferred modality for conducting standardized evaluations. Further research is necessary to investigate the feasibility and measurement properties of using standardized tools by telehealth.
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.