Gastroenterological disorders and hepatic disease in adults with cerebral palsy: A systematic review.
Christina M Marciniak, Jennifer M Ryan, Alejandra Camacho-Soto and 6 others
PMID 41165035WHAT IT FOUND
Prevalence of swallowing, reflux, and liver disease is higher in adults with cerebral palsy, especially those with intellectual disability or limited mobility.
However, no validated screening tools exist, and intervention evidence is sparse, so routine screening cannot be recommended yet.
Key findings
01Adults with cerebral palsy had a higher prevalence of gastroesophageal reflux disease, dysphagia, and hepatic disease than adults without cerebral palsy.
02Prevalence of constipation and dysphagia increased with greater motor impairment (higher GMFCS levels) and presence of intellectual disability.
03There were no studies evaluating the psychometric properties of screening tools for these gastrointestinal or hepatic disorders in adults with cerebral palsy.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for PTsWhat it means for OTsWhat it means for SLPs
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
All included studies were rated at high risk of bias. Certainty of evidence for all outcomes was very low to low. Prevalence rates varied drastically depending on how the disorder was defined and assessed (e.g., medical records vs. specific criteria like Rome III). No studies validated screening tools for adults with cerebral palsy, meaning current screening relies on tools developed for the general population. The review found no data on colorectal cancer prevalence or screening in this population. Most data came from high-income countries, limiting generalizability.
Declared interests
The project was supported by a grant from the Cerebral Palsy Foundation. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.
The easy way to misread this
Do not assume that high prevalence rates in this review reflect true clinical rates. The wide variation in prevalence (e.g., constipation from 4.4% to 66.7%) is largely due to differences in how studies defined and measured the conditions, with medical record reviews likely underestimating prevalence compared to active screening.
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 →