| Literature DB >> 25956055 |
Jakob Lorentzen1,2, Line Z Greve3, Mette Kliim-Due4, Betina Rasmussen5, P E Bilde6, Jens B Nielsen7,8.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Home-based training is becoming ever more important with increasing demands on the public health systems. We investigated whether individualized and supervised interactive home-based training delivered through the internet improves functional abilities in children with cerebral palsy (CP).Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2015 PMID: 25956055 PMCID: PMC4438624 DOI: 10.1186/s12883-015-0334-0
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Neurol ISSN: 1471-2377 Impact factor: 2.474
Summary of the information about the children at the beginning of the training
| Child number | Intervention (1) Control (2) | Gender (f)/(m) | Age (years) | GMFCS | MACS | CP type | Weight (kg) | Height (cm) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 1 | m | 12 | I | 1 | Uni | 34 | 144 |
| 2 | 1 | m | 12 | I | 1 | Uni right | 59 | 161 |
| 3 | 1 | m | 14 | I | 2 | Uni left | 64 | 180 |
| 4 | 1 | m | 10 | I | 1 | Uni right | 40 | 138 |
| 5 | 1 | f | 10 | I | 1 | Uni | 35 | 154 |
| 6 | 1 | f | 10 | I | 1 | Uni | 32 | 140 |
| 7 | 1 | m | 12 | I | 1 | Uni left | 47 | 159 |
| 8 | 1 | m | 9 | I | 1 | Uni left | 28 | 130 |
| 9 | 1 | m | 9 | I | 1 | Uni left | 34 | 135 |
| 10 | 1 | f | 9 | I | 1 | Uni left | 37 | 151 |
| 11 | 1 | f | 8 | I | 1 | Uni right | 20 | 128 |
| 12 | 1 | m | 7 | I | 2 | Uni left | 25 | 130 |
| 13 | 1 | m | 7 | I | 2 | Uni left | 19 | 125 |
| 14 | 1 | m | 8 | I | 2 | Uni right | 31 | 141 |
| 15 | 1 | f | 8 | I | 1 | Uni left | 39 | 143 |
| 16 | 1 | m | 15 | I | 2 | Uni left | 60 | 164 |
| 17 | 1 | m | 14 | I | 2 | Uni left | 37 | 156 |
| 18 | 1 | m | 12 | I | 2 | Uni right | 40 | 146 |
| 19 | 1 | f | 12 | II | 1 | Bilat | 49 | 160 |
| 20 | 1 | f | 13 | I | 1 | Uni right | 60 | 155 |
| 21 | 1 | f | 11 | I | 1 | Uni right | 44 | 148 |
| 22 | 1 | f | 11 | I | 1 | Uni left | 31 | 152 |
| 23 | 1 | m | 11 | I | 1 | Uni left | 40 | 143 |
| 24 | 1 | m | 10 | I | 2 | Uni right | 36 | 146 |
| 25 | 1 | m | 11 | I | 2 | Uni left | 52 | 154 |
| 26 | 1 | m | 10 | I | 2 | Uni left | 43 | 156 |
| 27 | 1 | m | 9 | I | 2 | Uni right | 36 | 144 |
| 28 | 1 | m | 9 | I | 2 | Uni right | 35 | 142 |
| 29 | 1 | m | 10 | I | 1 | Uni right | 35 | 141 |
| 30 | 1 | m | 8 | I | 1 | Uni right | 21 | 125 |
| 31 | 1 | f | 14 | I | 2 | Ataksi | 44 | 159 |
| 32 | 1 | f | 13 | I | 2 | Ataksi | 50 | 162 |
| 33 | 1 | m | 15 | I | 2 | Ataksi | 65 | 181 |
| 34 | 1 | m | 16 | I | 1 | Ataksi | 65 | 175 |
|
| f :11 m :23 | Mean: 10,9 ± 0,4 | I:33 II:1 |
| Uni :29 Bilat : 1 Ataksi: 4 | Mean: 40.8 ± 2.2 | Mean: 149.1 ± 2.5 | |
| 35 | 2 | f | 16 | I | 1 | Uni left | 40 | 148 |
| 36 | 2 | f | 10 | I | 1 | Uni right | 41 | 141 |
| 37 | 2 | f | 9 | I | 2 | Uni right | 33 | 139 |
| 38 | 2 | m | 7 | I | 1 | Uni left | 25 | 131 |
| 39 | 2 | m | 7 | I | 2 | Bilat | 22 | 128 |
| 40 | 2 | m | 12 | I | 2 | Uni left | 33 | 151 |
| 41 | 2 | m | 8 | I | 1 | Uni left | 35 | 139 |
| 42 | 2 | m | 11 | I | 1 | Bilat | 35 | 148 |
| 43 | 2 | f | 13 | II | 1 | Bilat | 32 | 141 |
| 44 | 2 | m | 15 | I | 1 | Uni left | 77 | 171 |
| 45 | 2 | m | 15 | I | 1 | Uni right | 50 | 168 |
| 46 | 2 | f | 12 | I | 1 | Uni right | 41 | 158 |
| N = 12 | f = 5 m =7 | Mean: 11.3 ± 0.9 | I = 11 II = 1 | I = 9 II = 3 | Uni:9 Bilat:3 | Mean: 38.7 ± 4.1 | Mean: 146.9 ± 3.9 |
This table summarizes the information about the participant in this study. Columns 1–4 contain information about subject id, belonging for each subject to intervention group (1) or control group (2), gender and age. Columns 5–9 contain information about each participants score on the Gross Motor Function Classification System (GMFCS), Manual Ability Classification System (MACS), categorisation of CP, weight and height
Fig. 1Assessment of motor and process skills (AMPS) scores are displayed for 28 children with cp in the intervention group before training (pre 1), after 20 weeks of training (post1) and 12 weeks after the training period (post 2) in (a, b). The motor scores are displayed in (a) and process scores in (b). The AMPS scores for the control group are displayed before (intro) and after (test 1) the 20 weeks period with no intervention for the motor scores (c) and process scores (d)
Fig. 2AHA (Assisting Hand Assessment) scores are displayed for 27 children with cp in the intervention group before training (pre), after 20 weeks of training (post 1) and 12 weeks after the training period (post 2) in (a, b). The scale scores are displayed in (a) and sum scores in (b). The AHA scores for the control group are displayed before (intro) and after (test 1) the 20 weeks period with no intervention for the scale scores (c) and sum scores (d)
Fig. 3Functional strength is displayed for children with CP in the intervention group before training (pre), after 20 weeks of training (post 1) and 12 weeks after the training period (post 2). The scores for the control group are displayed before (intro) and after (test 1) the 20 weeks period with no intervention. (a, b) show the average number of stand to sit cycles for the children with CP (A, filled circles) and for the children in the control group (B, open circles). (c-f) show the number of lateral-step-up cycles for left leg (c, d) and right leg (e, f). (g-j) show the number of half kneeling-standing cycles for the left leg (g, h) and right leg (i, j)
Fig. 4The balance parameters are displayed for children with CP in the intervention group before training (pre), after 20 weeks of training (post 1) and 12 weeks after the training period (post 2). The scores for the control group are displayed before (intro) and after (test 1) the 20 weeks period with no intervention. Filled circles indicate CP and open circles control. (a, b) show the average C90 in mm2. (c, d) show the average velocity mm/s and (e, f) show the average trace length mm