These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Multidimensional outcome assessment in cerebral palsy: is it feasible and relevant?
    Author: Viehweger E, Haumont T, de Lattre C, Presedo A, Filipetti P, Ilharreborde B, Lebarbier P, Loundou A, Simeoni MC, VARAX Study Group.
    Journal: J Pediatr Orthop; 2008; 28(5):576-83. PubMed ID: 18580376.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND: To examine feasibility and relevance of a multidimensional outcome assessment approach using instrumented 3-dimensional gait analysis, via the Gillette Gait Index (GGI), and a set of validated functional and health-related quality of life tools in diplegic cerebral palsy children, before introduction as a nationwide evaluation set. METHODS: A 3-year prospective government-funded multicenter study was conducted, recruiting patients during a 9-month period classified using the Gross Motor Function Classification System and the Rodda et al sagittal walking patterns. The Gross Motor Classification System Dimensions D and E, the 10-level Gillette Functional Assessment Questionnaire, the Energy Expenditure Index (EEI), the GGI out of 3D gait analysis, and health-related quality of life, assessed by self or proxy with the questionnaire "Vècu et Santè Perçu de l'Adolescent," were selected for the study. RESULTS: Cross-sectional data subset at inclusion of 160 spastic diplegic cerebral palsy patients, the largest series in our country, 6 to 18 years old (mean age, 11.0 years), are reported. The GGI correlated significantly (P < 0.001) with the Gross Motor Classification System, the Functional Assessment Questionnaire, and the EEI for all the patients, and all but one (EEI) correlated if grouped according to Gross Motor Function Classification System or Rodda. No systematic correlation was found between the quality of life scores and the other outcome tools. CONCLUSIONS: The outcome evaluation instrument set tested in our study helps to adopt common tools, to be integrated in an evidence-based practice and to compare health status and treatment outcome between countries, specifically in different linguistic environments like in European countries.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]