1 / 18

A systematic review of interventions for children with cerebral palsy: state of the evidence

A systematic review of interventions for children with cerebral palsy: state of the evidence . Rohini R Rattihalli 19.11.13. Why this paper. Relevant to practice Good learning points re: practical aspects of EBM. Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine 2011 Levels of Evidence .

mikkel
Download Presentation

A systematic review of interventions for children with cerebral palsy: state of the evidence

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. A systematic review of interventions for children with cerebral palsy: state of the evidence Rohini R Rattihalli 19.11.13

  2. Why this paper Relevant to practice Good learning points re: practical aspects of EBM

  3. Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine 2011 Levels of Evidence Treatment benefits: Systematic review of randomized trials or n-of-1 trials Randomized trial or observational study with dramatic effect Non-randomized controlled cohort/follow-up study Case-series, case-control studies, or historically controlled studies Mechanism-based reasoning

  4. Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) GRADE score: high (4), moderate (3), low (2), or very low quality (1 or less) Quality of evidence on • outcome of interest • in our population of interest. Initial score based on type of evidence +4 RCTs/ SR of RCTs, +/– other types of evidence +2 Observational evidence (e.g., cohort, case-control)

  5. Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) Quality: Based on Blinding and allocation process, Follow-up and withdrawals, Sparse data, Other methodological concerns (e.g., incomplete reporting, subjective outcomes) 0 No problems –1 Problem with 1 element –2 Problem with 2 elements –3 Problem with 3 or more elements Similar +/- regarding Consistency, Directness, Effect size

  6. ICF World Health Organization’s International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health Classification of health and health-related domains body functions and structure (BF), activity (A) Participation (P), environmental factors (E), Personal factors (P)

  7. Background: Interventions in CP 40% no reported evidence- based 20% ineffectual, unnecessary, or harmful.

  8. Methods Inclusion criteria • Level 1 preferred • Level 2 to 4 only if • No level 1 • New level 2 after most recent level 1 Full search strategy available on request

  9. Methods

  10. Results- Green

  11. Results-Amber

  12. Results: Red

  13. Neurodevelopmental therapy

  14. CASP • Did the review ask a clearly focused question? • Clear, but not focused (but this was intentional) 2. Did the authors look for the appropriate sort of papers? • Full description of search strategy not available in the paper, but assumed to be “yes”.

  15. CASP 3. Do you think important relevant studies were included? • Yes (assumed) 4. Did the review’s authors do enough to assess the quality of the included studies? • Yes (GRADE recommendations) 5. If the results of the review have been combined, was it reasonable to do so? • NA

  16. CASP 6. What are the overall result of the reviews? • Majority of the interventions in CP were “Amber”. This was mainly due to no sufficient evidence. 7. How precise are the results? • Precise within the constraints of information available to the authors.

  17. CASP 8. Can the results be applied to the local population? • Yes 9. Were all important outcomes considered? • Yes (and divided as per WHO International Classification of Functioning) 10. Are the benefits worth the harms and costs? • NA

  18. Bottom line • Green and Red interventions helpful, but majority of interventions are Amber: • Evidence of inadequate effect OR Lack of evidence • What is the realistic possibility of having Level 1, Strong High quality, strong recommendation evidence for all interventions? So what is the solution?

More Related