Analysis of risk of bias assessments in a sample of intervention systematic reviews, part I: many aspects of conduct and reporting need improvement.

Objectives: Current standards for systematic reviews (SRs) require adequate conduct and complete reporting of risk of bias (RoB) assessments of the individual studies included in the review. We investigated the conduct and reporting of RoB assessments reported in a sample of SRs of interventions for persons with cerebral palsy (CP).

Study Design And Setting: We included SRs published from 2014 to 2021.

Analysis of risk of bias assessments in a sample of intervention systematic reviews, Part II: focus on risk of bias tools reveals few meet current appraisal standards.

Objectives: Risk of bias (RoB) assessment is a critical part of any systematic review (SR). There are multiple tools available for assessing RoB of the studies included in a SR. The conduct of these assessments in intervention SRs are addressed by three items in AMSTAR-2, considered the preferred tool for critically appraising an intervention SR.

Principles for good scholarship in systematic reviews.

Many sources document problems that jeopardize the trustworthiness of systematic reviews. This is a major concern given their potential to influence patient care and impact people's lives. Responsibility for producing trustworthy conclusions on the evidence in systematic reviews is borne primarily by authors who need the necessary training and resources to correctly report on the current knowledge base.

Guidance to best tools and practices for systematic reviews1.

Data continue to accumulate indicating that many systematic reviews are methodologically flawed, biased, redundant, or uninformative. Some improvements have occurred in recent years based on empirical methods research and standardization of appraisal tools; however, many authors do not routinely or consistently apply these updated methods. In addition, guideline developers, peer reviewers, and journal editors often disregard current methodological standards.

Guidance to best tools and practices for systematic reviews.

Data continue to accumulate indicating that many systematic reviews are methodologically flawed, biased, redundant, or uninformative. Some improvements have occurred in recent years based on empirical methods research and standardization of appraisal tools; however, many authors do not routinely or consistently apply these updated methods. In addition, guideline developers, peer reviewers, and journal editors often disregard current methodological standards.

Guidance to best tools and practices for systematic reviews.

Data continue to accumulate indicating that many systematic reviews are methodologically flawed, biased, redundant, or uninformative. Some improvements have occurred in recent years based on empirical methods research and standardization of appraisal tools; however, many authors do not routinely or consistently apply these updated methods. In addition, guideline developers, peer reviewers, and journal editors often disregard current methodological standards.

Guidance to best tools and practices for systematic reviews.

Data continue to accumulate indicating that many systematic reviews are methodologically flawed, biased, redundant, or uninformative. Some improvements have occurred in recent years based on empirical methods research and standardization of appraisal tools; however, many authors do not routinely or consistently apply these updated methods. In addition, guideline developers, peer reviewers, and journal editors often disregard current methodological standards.

Guidance to Best Tools and Practices for Systematic Reviews.

» Data continue to accumulate indicating that many systematic reviews are methodologically flawed, biased, redundant, or uninformative. Some improvements have occurred in recent years based on empirical methods research and standardization of appraisal tools; however, many authors do not routinely or consistently apply these updated methods. In addition, guideline developers, peer reviewers, and journal editors often disregard current methodological standards.

Guidance to best tools and practices for systematic reviews.

Data continue to accumulate indicating that many systematic reviews are methodologically flawed, biased, redundant, or uninformative. Some improvements have occurred in recent years based on empirical methods research and standardization of appraisal tools; however, many authors do not routinely or consistently apply these updated methods. In addition, guideline developers, peer reviewers, and journal editors often disregard current methodological standards.

Guidance to best tools and practices for systematic reviews.

Data continue to accumulate indicating that many systematic reviews are methodologically flawed, biased, redundant, or uninformative. Some improvements have occurred in recent years based on empirical methods research and standardization of appraisal tools; however, many authors do not routinely or consistently apply these updated methods. In addition, guideline developers, peer reviewers, and journal editors often disregard current methodological standards.

Is botulinum toxin type A more effective and safer than other treatments for the management of lower limb spasticity in children with cerebral palsy? A Cochrane Review summary with commentary.

Background: Botulinum toxin A (BoNT-A) is a well-accepted treatment for the medical management of spasticity in children with cerebral palsy (CP).

Objective: To assess the efficacy and safety of BoNT-A compared with other treatment options in managing lower limb spasticity in children with CP.

Methods: A summary of the Cochrane Review update by Blumetti et al.

Quality appraisal of systematic reviews of interventions for children with cerebral palsy reveals critically low confidence.

Aim: To evaluate the methodological quality of recent systematic reviews of interventions for children with cerebral palsy in order to determine the level of confidence in the reviews' conclusions.

Method: A comprehensive search of 22 databases identified eligible systematic reviews with and without meta-analysis published worldwide from 2015 to 2019. We independently extracted data and used A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews-2 (AMSTAR-2) to appraise methodological quality.

Interrater reliability and convergent validity of the American Academy for Cerebral Palsy and Developmental Medicine methodology for conducting systematic reviews.

Aim: The aim of this study was to evaluate the interrater reliability and convergent validity of the American Academy for Cerebral Palsy and Developmental Medicine's (AACPDM) methodology for conducting systematic reviews (group design studies).

Method: Four clinicians independently rated 24 articles for the level of evidence and conduct using AACPDM methodology. Study conduct was also assessed using the Effective Public Health Practice Project scale.

Safety profile of multilevel chemical denervation procedures using phenol or botulinum toxin or both in a pediatric population.

Objective: To investigate the safety of single and repeated multilevel injections of botulinum toxin (BoNT) alone or a combination of phenol and BoNT performed under general anesthesia in children with chronic muscle spasticity.

Design: Retrospective cohort study. Data from 336 children who received a total of 764 treatments were analyzed.

Use of intrathecal baclofen in a pediatric cerebral palsy patient with refractory hemiplegia to maintain orthopaedic surgery gains.

Spasticity, a common symptom accompanying cerebral palsy (CP), can severely affect patients' function and cause disability in childhood. Intrathecal baclofen (ITB) therapy is a widely used treatment to reduce spasticity in quadriparetic CP patients. Likewise, adults sustaining strokes and subsequent spastic hemiplegic have proven excellent candidates as well from ITB therapy.

The outcome of intrathecal baclofen treatment on spastic diplegia: Preliminary results with a minimum of two year follow-up.

The purpose of this study is to report the short-term outcome of intrathecal baclofen therapy on the function of individuals with diplegic cerebral palsy (CP) and the health-related quality of life (HRQL) of their caregivers. Eight pediatric patients with spastic diplegia were treated with ITB following failed oral spasticity management and were followed for a minimum of 2 years. Physical and functional outcomes were assessed using Ashworth Scores (AS), Physician Rating Scale (PRS), and a subset of the Functional Independence Measure for children (WeeFIM).

Intrathecal baclofen in cerebral palsy: A decade of treatment outcomes.

Continuous intrathecal baclofen (CITB) is considered a standard treatment for spasticity in patients with cerebral palsy (CP). This review summarizes the recent literature and assesses the evidence for the efficacy of ITB for spasticity and its related sequelae in patients with CP. The literature was searched using electronic databases and reference lists from March 2000 through April 2007.