3.8 Review

Hand function development of children with hemiplegic cerebral palsy: A scoping review

期刊

出版社

IOS PRESS
DOI: 10.3233/PRM-200714

关键词

Hand function; assessment methods; hemiplegia; cerebral palsy; upper limb

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This scoping review provides a summary of the development of hand function in children with hemiplegic cerebral palsy (hCP). Although several studies have assessed hand function in this population, most rely on clinical scales or qualitative descriptions. Further research is needed to identify the underlying impairment mechanisms and improve treatment.
PURPOSE: Hemiplegic cerebral palsy (hCP) typically impacts sensorimotor control of the hand, but comprehensive assessments of the hands of children with hCP are relatively rare. This scoping review summarizes the development of hand function for children with hCP. METHODS: This scoping review focused on the development of hand function in children with hCP. Electronic databases (PubMed, PEDro, Web of Science, CINAHL, and SpringerLink) were searched to identify studies assessing hand function in children with hCP. The search was performed using keywords (e.g., hemiplegia). An iterative approach verified by two authors was used to select the studies. Articles which reported quantitative data for children with hCP on any items of a specified set of hand evaluations were included. Measures were sorted into three categories: quantitative neuromechanics, clinical assessments, and clinical functional evaluations. RESULTS: Initial searches returned 1536 articles, 131 of which were included in the final review. Trends between assessment scores and age were examined for both hands. CONCLUSION: While several studies have evaluated hand function in children with hCP, the majority relied on clinical scales, assessments, or qualitative descriptions. Further assessments of kinematics, kinetics, and muscle activation patterns are needed to identify the underlying impairment mechanisms that should be targeted for treatment.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据