Effect of Exercise and Motor Interventions on Physical Activity and Motor Outcomes of Adults with Cerebral Palsy: A Systematic Review.
Danielle Januszyk, Ellen Schafer, Holly J Thompson and 1 others
PMID 38183292WHAT IT FOUND
Very low quality evidence from 25 studies: rhythmic auditory stimulation and balance training showed small benefits over their comparators, while treadmill training, resistance training, and whole-body vibration did not outperform their controls.
No intervention was shown to work reliably.
Key findings
01Rhythmic auditory stimulation showed a small benefit over neurodevelopmental treatment for gait velocity and quality of gait, and treadmill training showed a small benefit over standard care for gait velocity and ankle stiffness, but treadmill training did not outperform traditional physical therapy for walking function.
02Resistance training did not outperform standard care for strength or gait function, and whole-body vibration did not outperform resistance training for the same outcomes.
03Balance training improved self-reported ambulatory confidence and perceived change in balance compared to seated therapeutic activities, but objective balance performance measures did not change.
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
Only 6 of the 25 included studies were RCTs with low or moderate risk of bias; the rest were controlled trials or before-after studies with high risk of bias. Sample sizes were small, ranging from 7 to 44 participants per study, which limits the ability to detect real differences between groups. The interventions, populations, and outcome measures were too heterogeneous to combine in a meta-analysis. No studies included participants with severe intellectual disability, so the findings may not apply to that group. Participation outcomes, the ones closest to what patients actually care about in daily life, were measured in only 4 of the 25 studies.
Declared interests
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
The easy way to misread this
Do not read the positive findings as settled. Every GRADE assessment in this review is very low or low quality, based on small samples (7 to 44 participants per study) with high risk of bias in most studies. The few positive between-group results come from single small RCTs, and the authors' own conclusion is that specific recommendations for clinical practice are limited.
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 →