Uncertainties regarding cerebral palsy diagnosis: opportunities to operationalize the consensus definition.


Journal

medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences
Titre abrégé: medRxiv
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101767986

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
03 Jul 2023
Historique:
pubmed: 18 7 2023
medline: 18 7 2023
entrez: 18 7 2023
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Cerebral palsy (CP), the most common motor disability of childhood, is variably diagnosed. We hypothesized that child neurologists and neurodevelopmentalists, often on the frontlines of CP diagnosis in North America, harbor uncertainties regarding the practical application of the most recent CP consensus definition from 2006. We conducted a cross-sectional survey of child neurologists and neurodevelopmentalists at the 2022 Child Neurology Society Annual Meeting. Attendees were provided the 2006 CP consensus definition and asked whether they had any uncertainties about the practical application of the definition across four hypothetical clinical vignettes. Of 230 attendees, 164 responded to the closing survey questions (71%). 145/164 (88%) expressed at least one uncertainty regarding the clinical application of the 2006 definition. Overwhelmingly, these areas of uncertainty focused on: 1) Age, both with regards to the minimum age of diagnosis and the maximum age of brain disturbance or motor symptom onset, (67/164, 41%), and 2) Interpretation of the term "non-progressive" (48/164, 29%). The vast majority of respondents (157/164, 96%) answered 'Yes' to the question: Do you think we should revise the 2006 consensus definition of CP? We propose that the uncertainties we identified could be addressed by operationalizing the 2006 consensus definition to support a more uniform CP diagnosis. To address the most common CP diagnostic uncertainties we identified, we propose 3 points of clarification based on the available literature: 1) Motor symptoms/signs should be present by 2 years old; 2) CP can and should be diagnosed as early as possible, even if activity limitation is not yet present, if motor symptoms/signs can be reasonably predicted to yield activity limitation (e.g. by using standardized examination instruments, Brain MRI, and a suggestive clinical history); and 3) The clinical motor disability phenotype should be non-progressive through 5 years old. We anticipate that operationalizing the 2006 definition of CP in this manner could clarify the uncertainties we identified among child neurologists and neurodevelopmentalists and reduce the diagnostic variability that currently exists.

Sections du résumé

Background and Objectives UNASSIGNED
Cerebral palsy (CP), the most common motor disability of childhood, is variably diagnosed. We hypothesized that child neurologists and neurodevelopmentalists, often on the frontlines of CP diagnosis in North America, harbor uncertainties regarding the practical application of the most recent CP consensus definition from 2006.
Methods UNASSIGNED
We conducted a cross-sectional survey of child neurologists and neurodevelopmentalists at the 2022 Child Neurology Society Annual Meeting. Attendees were provided the 2006 CP consensus definition and asked whether they had any uncertainties about the practical application of the definition across four hypothetical clinical vignettes.
Results UNASSIGNED
Of 230 attendees, 164 responded to the closing survey questions (71%). 145/164 (88%) expressed at least one uncertainty regarding the clinical application of the 2006 definition. Overwhelmingly, these areas of uncertainty focused on: 1) Age, both with regards to the minimum age of diagnosis and the maximum age of brain disturbance or motor symptom onset, (67/164, 41%), and 2) Interpretation of the term "non-progressive" (48/164, 29%). The vast majority of respondents (157/164, 96%) answered 'Yes' to the question: Do you think we should revise the 2006 consensus definition of CP?
Discussion UNASSIGNED
We propose that the uncertainties we identified could be addressed by operationalizing the 2006 consensus definition to support a more uniform CP diagnosis. To address the most common CP diagnostic uncertainties we identified, we propose 3 points of clarification based on the available literature: 1) Motor symptoms/signs should be present by 2 years old; 2) CP can and should be diagnosed as early as possible, even if activity limitation is not yet present, if motor symptoms/signs can be reasonably predicted to yield activity limitation (e.g. by using standardized examination instruments, Brain MRI, and a suggestive clinical history); and 3) The clinical motor disability phenotype should be non-progressive through 5 years old. We anticipate that operationalizing the 2006 definition of CP in this manner could clarify the uncertainties we identified among child neurologists and neurodevelopmentalists and reduce the diagnostic variability that currently exists.

Identifiants

pubmed: 37461618
doi: 10.1101/2023.06.29.23292028
pmc: PMC10350155
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Preprint

Langues

eng

Subventions

Organisme : NINDS NIH HHS
ID : K08 NS117850
Pays : United States

Auteurs

Bhooma R Aravamuthan (BR)

Division of Pediatric Neurology, Department of Neurology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA.

Darcy L Fehlings (DL)

Holland Bloorview Kids Rehabilitation Hospital, Department of Paediatrics, University of Toronto.

Iona Novak (I)

Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, AustraliaCerebral Palsy Alliance Research Institute, Discipline of Child and Adolescent Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.

Paul Gross (P)

The Cerebral Palsy Research Network, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA.

Noor Alyasiri (N)

Division of Pediatric Neurology, Department of Neurology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA.

Ann Tilton (A)

Louisiana Health Science Center New Orleans, Children's Hospital of New Orleans, New Orleans, LA, USA.

Michael Shevell (M)

Departments of Pediatrics and Neurology/Neurosurgery and Montreal Children's Hospital, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

Michael Fahey (M)

Department of Paediatrics, Monash University Melbourne Australia.

Michael Kruer (M)

Barrow Neurological Institute, Phoenix Children's, Phoenix, AZ USA; Departments of Cellular & Molecular Medicine, Child Health, Neurology and Program in, Genetics, University of Arizona College of Medicine - Phoenix, Phoenix, AZ USA.

Classifications MeSH