Development of a set of core outcome measures for ambulant children with cerebral palsy after lower limb orthopaedic surgery.
Hajar Almoajil, Sally Hopewell, Helen Dawes and 3 others
PMID 41460157WHAT IT FOUND
A consensus panel recommended seven outcome measures to assess ambulant children with cerebral palsy after lower limb surgery.
The Goal Outcome Assessment List was preferred across most domains, complemented by gait analysis and quality of life tools to capture both clinical and patient-reported impacts.
Key findings
01Seven outcome measures were recommended to address eight core domains, with the Goal Outcome Assessment List (GOAL) favoured for its ability to capture patient-reported outcomes across multiple areas including pain, mobility, and independence.
02The recommended set combines clinician-driven measures like 3D gait analysis and the Gross Motor Function Measure-66 with patient-reported measures like the GOAL and Cerebral Palsy Quality of Life questionnaire to ensure comprehensive assessment.
03The Edinburgh Visual Gait Scale was recommended as a useful alternative to 3D gait analysis in settings where specialized resources or expertise are limited.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for PTsWhat it means for OTs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
The consensus panel was small (n=7) and predominantly from the UK and other English-speaking countries, which may limit global applicability. Patients and parents were not involved in the consensus process, so the usability and comprehension of the measures from their perspective were not directly assessed. All recommended measures are currently in English formats; some lack validation in other languages, restricting use in non-English speaking populations. The initial scoping review focused specifically on lower limb orthopaedic surgery, so broader clinical outcome measures may have been excluded. Fall risk is only assessed indirectly; there is no direct measure for fall risk or its impact included in the core set.
Declared interests
The authors have stated that they had no interests that might be perceived as posing a conflict or bias.
The easy way to misread this
Do not assume this core set is validated for all languages or cultures. The measures are primarily in English and were selected by a small, UK-centric panel, so their applicability in non-English speaking contexts or for patients with different cultural expectations of care has not been established.
Summarised by AI from the full paper, without a clinician reviewing it. Check it against the source before it changes what you do. Read it on PubMed →