Using game performance measure to assess upper limb motor function in children with neuromotor disorders: a systematic review.
Kevin Rose-Dulcina, Stéphane Armand, Marine Cacioppo
PMID 40796859WHAT IT FOUND
Game-based assessments for children's upper limb function show promise in distinguishing impairment levels, but lack consistent reliability data.
They capture movement details better than standard clinical tests, yet cannot currently replace validated measures due to insufficient evidence on consistency over time.
Key findings
01Game-based outcomes demonstrated moderate to good discriminant validity, effectively differentiating children with neuromotor disorders from typically developing peers.
02Reliability data is largely missing, with only three studies reporting test-retest consistency, which prevents these tools from being used as standalone outcome measures.
03Spatiotemporal parameters like movement time and smoothness were the most frequently used metrics, correlating with clinical assessments but not yet validated for responsiveness to 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
The majority of included studies involved children with cerebral palsy, limiting generalizability to other neuromotor disorders like stroke or traumatic brain injury. There was significant heterogeneity in the games and measurement systems used, making direct comparisons between studies difficult. Most studies did not report sample size calculations, raising concerns about statistical power. Reliability and responsiveness data were sparse, preventing firm conclusions about the consistency of these measures over time or their sensitivity to change. The review excluded grey literature, which may have omitted relevant unpublished data.
Declared interests
The study was funded by the Prim'Enfance Foundation, the Research Fund of Geneva University Hospital, and the University of Geneva. No conflicts of interest were declared by the authors.
The easy way to misread this
Do not assume game-based scores are reliable enough to track individual patient progress. The review found that reliability data was missing for most outcomes, and only a few studies showed consistent results over time. Use these tools as supplementary insights rather than primary outcome measures.