ArticleDevelopmental medicine and child neurology2026
Assessment of trunk movement and posture in spastic and dyskinetic cerebral palsy: A scoping review.
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. 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.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimTo map and summarize available clinical and instrumented assessment tools for evaluating trunk control in individuals with spastic or dyskinetic cerebral palsy (CP) across Gross Motor Function Classification System (GMFCS) levels, describing their current application, assessed features, and psychometric properties, to provide first practical guidance for tool use.
methodFor this scoping review, eight databases were systematically searched. Studies were included if they evaluated reliability, validity, or responsiveness of tools assessing trunk control in spastic/dyskinetic CP. The review followed the methodology of the JBI and the guidelines of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR).
resultsThe search yielded 27 332 publications, of which 110 met the inclusion criteria. Twenty-two distinct assessment tools were identified, including 12 clinical and 10 instrumented. Instrumented assessment tools were most frequently investigated (65%). Validity was reported in 62% of studies; reliability and responsiveness in 30% and 0% respectively. Notably, 85% of studies focused exclusively on individuals with spastic CP, only 28% addressed individuals with CP classified in GMFCS levels IV or V.
interpretationThis review highlights critical gaps in research on trunk control assessment in CP, particularly for patients with severe disabilities, tool responsiveness, and coverage of key facets of trunk control. Future research should prioritize thorough psychometric evaluation of tools, across facets, accounting for the diverse applications and heterogenous clinical presentations in CP.
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.