Somatosensory deficits and neural correlates in cerebral palsy: a scoping review.
Clémentine Brun, Élodie Traverse, Élyse Granger and 1 others
PMID 34145582WHAT IT FOUND
Across 48 studies, most studies found tactile and proprioceptive deficits in people with cerebral palsy, often in both affected and less affected limbs; pain evidence was sparse and neuroimaging results were inconsistent.
Key findings
01Most studies that tested tactile function found deficits in tactile registration and tactile perception in participants with cerebral palsy.
02Proprioceptive registration deficits were common, while proprioceptive perception results were more variable.
03Pain function was assessed in few studies, and pain perception showed both deficits and gains in sensory function.
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 review did not use a formal risk-of-bias assessment, so it cannot draw a definitive conclusion about somatosensory deficits. The included studies were heterogeneous in tests, limbs, ages, and CP type, and most tested upper limbs in children, so generalization is limited. The mean checklist score was 14.5 out of 22, and outcome definition was the weakest item. Pain was assessed in only 5 of 48 studies, and pain characteristics were often not described, which can affect tactile and proprioceptive results. Functional classification levels were reported in only 11 studies and etiology in 14, so it is hard to identify which subgroups had deficits. Language restrictions to English, French, or satisfactorily translatable articles may have omitted relevant studies. Tests require understanding and performance, so results may exclude people with significant cognitive impairment; one study reported that only 17% of its sample could perform quantitative sensory testing.
Declared interests
No included study reported a conflict of interest. Funding sources were reported in supplementary tables. The article is marked as supported by non-U.S. government research support.
The easy way to misread this
Do not conclude that somatosensory training improves function. This review maps deficits across observational studies and notes that intervention evidence is limited.