Measurement properties of the Gross Motor Function Classification System, Gross Motor Function Classification System-Expanded & Revised, Manual Ability Classification System, and Communication Function Classification System in cerebral palsy: a systematic review with meta-analysis

Daniele Piscitelli, Francesco Ferrarello, Alessandro Ugolini, Sofia Verola, Leonardo Pellicciari, Daniele Piscitelli, Francesco Ferrarello, Alessandro Ugolini, Sofia Verola, Leonardo Pellicciari

Abstract

Aim: To systematically review and meta-analyse the measurement properties of the Gross Motor Function Classification System (GMFCS), Gross Motor Function Classification System-Expanded & Revised (GMFCS-E&R), Manual Ability Classification System (MACS), and Communication Function Classification System (CFCS) in children with cerebral palsy (CP).

Method: Six databases were searched. Articles on the measurement properties of the GMFCS, GMFCS-E&R, MACS, and CFCS administered to children with CP were included. Quality was assessed by means of the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) Risk of Bias checklist. The level and grading of evidence were defined for each measurement property.

Results: Forty-four articles were included in the systematic review and 37 articles were included in the meta-analysis. The level (grading) of evidence was strong (positive) for reliability and construct validity. Content validity displayed an unknown level of evidence for the GMFCS, limited evidence (positive) for the MACS, and moderate evidence (positive) for the CFCS. There was moderate (positive) evidence for measurement error in the GMFCS and MACS. The level of evidence for responsiveness was unknown. No studies investigated cross-cultural validity.

Interpretation: These instruments can be used by health care professionals and caregivers to quantify the constructs needed to measure ability in children with CP. Current high-quality evidence supports the use of these tools to classify ability in children with CP. Adopting the COSMIN guidelines, content, and cross-cultural validity should be investigated further. What this paper adds Strong evidence supports the reliability and construct validity of the GMFCS, GMFCS-E&R, MACS, and CFCS as functional classification systems in children with cerebral palsy. The GMFCS, GMFCS-E&R, MACS, and CFCS can be used by both health care professionals and caregivers. The GMFCS, GMFCS-E&R, MACS, and CFCS should not be used to detect change.

© 2021 Mac Keith Press.

References

REFERENCES

    1. Rosenbaum P, Paneth N, Leviton A, et al. A report: the definition and classification of cerebral palsy April 2006. Dev Med Child Neurol Suppl 2007; 109: 8-14.
    1. Palisano R, Rosenbaum P, Walter S, Russell D, Wood E, Galuppi B. Development and reliability of a system to classify gross motor function in children with cerebral palsy. Dev Med Child Neurol 1997; 39: 214-23.
    1. Palisano RJ, Rosenbaum P, Bartlett D, Livingston MH. Content validity of the expanded and revised Gross Motor Function Classification System. Dev Med Child Neurol 2008; 50: 744-50.
    1. Eliasson A-C, Krumlinde-Sundholm L, Rösblad B, et al. The Manual Ability Classification System (MACS) for children with cerebral palsy: scale development and evidence of validity and reliability. Dev Med Child Neurol 2006; 48: 549-54.
    1. Eliasson A-C, Ullenhag A, Wahlström U, Krumlinde-Sundholm L. Mini-MACS: development of the Manual Ability Classification System for children younger than 4 years of age with signs of cerebral palsy. Dev Med Child Neurol 2017; 59: 72-8.
    1. Hidecker MJ, Paneth N, Rosenbaum PL, et al. Developing and validating the Communication Function Classification System for individuals with cerebral palsy. Dev Med Child Neurol 2011; 53: 704-10.
    1. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. J Clin Epidemiol 2009; 62: e1-e34.
    1. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med 2009; 151: 264-9.
    1. Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL, et al. The COSMIN study reached international consensus on taxonomy, terminology, and definitions of measurement properties for health-related patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol 2010; 63: 737-45.
    1. Terwee CB, Mokkink LB, Knol DL, Ostelo RW, Bouter L, de Vet HC. Rating the methodological quality in systematic reviews of studies on measurement properties: a scoring system for the COSMIN checklist. Qual Life Res 2012; 21: 651-7.
    1. Williams F, Monge PR. Reasoning with statistics: how to read quantitative research (5th edition). Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt College Publishers, 2001.
    1. Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL, et al. The COSMIN checklist for assessing the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties of health status measurement instruments: an international Delphi study. Qual Life Res 2010; 19: 539-49.
    1. Dobson F, Hinman RS, Hall M, Terwee CB, Roos EM, Bennell KL. Measurement properties of performance-based measures to assess physical function in hip and knee osteoarthritis: a systematic review. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2012; 20: 1548-62.
    1. Kroman SL, Roos EM, Bennell KL, Hinman RS, Dobson F. Measurement properties of performance-based outcome measures to assess physical function in young and middle-aged people known to be at high risk of hip and/or knee osteoarthritis: a systematic review. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2014; 22: 26-39.
    1. Birnie KA, Hundert AS, Lalloo C, Nguyen C, Stinson JN. Recommendations for selection of self-report pain intensity measures in children and adolescents: a systematic review and quality assessment of measurement properties. Pain 2019; 160: 5-18.
    1. Gertler P, Tate RL. Are single item mood scales (SIMS) valid for people with traumatic brain injury? Brain Inj 2020; 34: 653-64.
    1. de Vet HCW, Terwee CB, Mokkink LB, Knol DL. Measurement in medicine: a practical guide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011.
    1. Senn SJ. Overstating the evidence: double counting in meta-analysis and related problems. BMC Med Res Methodol 2009; 9: 10.
    1. Schmidt FL, Oh I-S, Hayes TL. Fixed- versus random-effects models in meta-analysis: model properties and an empirical comparison of differences in results. Br J Math Stat Psychol 2009; 62: 97-128.
    1. Cooper HM, Hedges LV, Valentine JC. The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis (2nd edition). New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 2009.
    1. Borenstein M, Cooper H, Hedges L, et al. Effect sizes for continuous data. In: Cooper HM, Hedges LV, Valentine JC, editors. The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis, 2nd ed. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 2009: 221-35.
    1. DerSimonian R, Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 1986; 7: 177-88.
    1. Paule RC, Mandel J. Consensus values, regressions, and weighting factors. J Res Natl Inst Stand Technol 1989; 94: 197-203.
    1. Jackson D, Bowden J. Confidence intervals for the between-study variance in random-effects meta-analysis using generalised heterogeneity statistics: should we use unequal tails? BMC Med Res Methodol 2016; 16: 118.
    1. Higgins JPT, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ 2003; 327: 557-60.
    1. Sterne JAC, Sutton AJ, Ioannidis JPA, et al. Recommendations for examining and interpreting funnel plot asymmetry in meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials. BMJ 2011; 343: d4002.
    1. Prinsen CA, Vohra S, Rose MR, et al. How to select outcome measurement instruments for outcomes included in a “Core Outcome Set”: a practical guideline. Trials 2016; 17: 449.
    1. Prinsen CAC, Mokkink LB, Bouter LM, et al. COSMIN guideline for systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures. Qual Life Res 2018; 27: 1147-57.
    1. van Tulder M, Furlan A, Bombardier C, Bouter L. Updated method guidelines for systematic reviews in the Cochrane Collaboration Back Review Group. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2003; 28: 1290-9.
    1. Akpinar P, Tezel CG, Eliasson A-C, Icagasioglu A. Reliability and cross-cultural validation of the Turkish version of Manual Ability Classification System (MACS) for children with cerebral palsy. Disabil Rehabil 2010; 32: 1910-6.
    1. Almasri N, Saleh M. Inter-rater agreement of the Arabic Gross Motor Classification System Expanded & Revised in children with cerebral palsy in Jordan. Disabil Rehabil 2015; 37: 1895-901.
    1. Benedict RE, Patz J, Maenner MJ, et al. Feasibility and reliability of classifying gross motor function among children with cerebral palsy using population-based record surveillance. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol 2011; 25: 88-96.
    1. Chagas P, Defilipo E, Lemos R, et al. Classificação da função motora e do desempenho funcional de crianças com paralisia cerebral [Article in Portuguese]. Braz J Phys Ther 2008; 12: 409-16.
    1. Choi JY, Hwang EH, Rha D, Park ES. Reliability and validity of the Korean-language version of the Communication Function Classification System in children with cerebral palsy. Child Care Health Dev 2018; 44: 140-6.
    1. El O, Baydar M, Berk H, Peker O, Koşay C, Demiral Y. Interobserver reliability of the Turkish version of the expanded and revised gross motor function classification system. Disabil Rehabil 2012; 34: 1030-3.
    1. Gorter JW, Ketelaar M, Rosenbaum P, Helders PJM, Palisano R. Use of the GMFCS in infants with CP: the need for reclassification at age 2 years or older. Dev Med Child Neurol 2009; 51: 46-52.
    1. Hiratuka E, Matsukura TS, Pfeifer LI. Adaptação transcultural para o Brasil do Sistema de Classificação da Função Motora Grossa (GMFCS) [Article in Portuguese]. Braz J Phys Ther 2010; 14: 537-44.
    1. Hustad KC, Oakes A, McFadd E, Allison KM. Alignment of classification paradigms for communication abilities in children with cerebral palsy. Dev Med Child Neurol 2016; 58: 597-604.
    1. Jang D-H, Sung IY, Kang JY, et al. Reliability and validity of the Korean version of the manual ability classification system for children with cerebral palsy. Child Care Health Dev 2013; 39: 90-3.
    1. Ko J, Woo J-H, Her J-G. The reliability and concurrent validity of the GMFCS for children with cerebral palsy. J Phys Ther Sci 2011; 23: 255-8.
    1. Kondo I, Hosokawa K, Soma M, et al. Gross Motor Function Classification System: preliminary study for Japanese children. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2003; 82: 116-21.
    1. Löwing K, Arredondo YC, Tedroff M, Tedroff C. Introduction of the gross motor function classification system in Venezuela: a model for knowledge dissemination. BMC Pediatr 2015; 15: 111.
    1. Morris C, Galuppi BE, Rosenbaum PL. Reliability of family report for the Gross Motor Function Classification System. Dev Med Child Neurol 2004; 46: 455-60.
    1. Morris C, Kurinczuk JJ, Fitzpatrick R, Rosenbaum PL. Reliability of the Manual Ability Classification System for children with cerebral palsy. Dev Med Child Neurol 2006; 48: 950-3.
    1. Mutlu A, Kara OK, Gunel MK, Karahan S, Livanelioglu A. Agreement between parents and clinicians for the motor functional classification systems of children with cerebral palsy. Disabil Rehabil 2011; 33: 927-32.
    1. Mutlu A, Kara OK, Livanelioğlu A, et al. Agreement between parents and clinicians on the communication function levels and relationship of classification systems of children with cerebral palsy. Disabil Health J 2018; 11: 281-6.
    1. Öhrvall A-M, Eliasson A-C. Parents’ and therapists’ perceptions of the content of the Manual Ability Classification System, MACS. Scand J Occup Ther 2010; 17: 209-16.
    1. Öhrvall A-M, Krumlinde-Sundholm L, Eliasson A-C. Exploration of the relationship between the Manual Ability Classification System and hand-function measures of capacity and performance. Disabil Rehabil 2013; 35: 913-8.
    1. Öhrvall AM, Krumlinde-Sundholm L, Eliasson A-C. The stability of the Manual Ability Classification System over time. Dev Med Child Neurol 2014; 56: 185-9.
    1. Oskoui M, Majnemer A, Dagenais L, Shevell M. The relationship between gross motor function and manual ability in cerebral palsy. J Child Neurol 2013; 28: 1646-52.
    1. Palisano RJ, Avery L, Gorter JW, Galuppi B, McCoy SW. Stability of the Gross Motor Function Classification System, Manual Ability Classification System, and Communication Function Classification System. Dev Med Child Neurol 2018; 60: 1026-32.
    1. Papavasiliou AS, Rapidi CA, Rizou C, Petropoulou K, Tzavara C. Reliability of Greek version Gross Motor Function Classification System. Brain Dev 2007; 29: 79-82.
    1. Park ES, Rha DW, Park JH, Park DH, Sim EG. Relation among the gross motor function, manual performance and upper limb functional measures in children with spastic cerebral palsy. Yonsei Med J 2013; 54: 516-22.
    1. Peck JB, McMulkin ML, Baird GO, Caskey PM. Gross Motor Function Classification System in patients with cerebral palsy: interobserver reliability between parents and orthopaedic specialists. Curr Orthop Pract 2017; 28: 465-8.
    1. Piscitelli D, Vercelli S, Meroni R, Zagnoni G, Pellicciari L. Reliability of the gross motor function classification system and the manual ability classification system in children with cerebral palsy in Tanzania. Dev Neurorehabil 2019; 22: 80-6.
    1. Plasschaert VFP, Ketelaar M, Nijnuis MG, Enkelaar L, Gorter JW. Classification of manual abilities in children with cerebral palsy under 5 years of age: how reliable is the Manual Ability Classification System? Clin Rehabil 2009; 23: 164-70.
    1. Randall M, Harvey A, Imms C, Reid S, Lee KJ, Reddihough D. Reliable classification of functional profiles and movement disorders of children with cerebral palsy. Phys Occup Ther Pediatr 2013; 33: 342-52.
    1. Riyahi A, Rassafiani M, AkbarFahimi N, Sahaf R, Yazdani F. Cross-cultural validation of the Persian version of the Manual Ability Classification System for children with cerebral palsy. Int J Ther Rehabil 2013; 20: 19-24.
    1. Sanz Mengibar JM, Santonja-Medina F, Sanchez-de-Muniain P, Canteras-Jordana M. Can clinical assessment of locomotive body function explain gross motor environmental performance in cerebral palsy? J Child Neurol 2016; 31: 474-80.
    1. Shi W, Yang H, Li CY, et al. Expanded and revised gross motor function classification system: study for Chinese school children with cerebral palsy. Disabil Rehabil 2014; 36: 403-8.
    1. Silva DB, Funayama CAR, Pfeifer LI. Manual Ability Classification System (MACS): reliability between therapists and parents in Brazil. Braz J Phys Ther 2015; 19: 26-33.
    1. Silva DBR, Pfeifer LI, Funayama CAR. Gross Motor Function Classification System Expanded & Revised (GMFCS E & R): reliability between therapists and parents in Brazil. Braz J Phys Ther 2013; 17: 458-63.
    1. Silva DBR, Dias LB, Pfeifer LI. Confiabilidade do Sistema de Classificação da Função Motora Grossa Ampliado e Revisto (GMFCS E & R) entre estudantes e profissionais de saúde no Brasil. Fisioter Pesqui 2016; 23: 142-7.
    1. Soleymani Z, Joveini G, Baghestani AR. The Communication Function Classification System: cultural adaptation, validity, and reliability of the Farsi version for patients with cerebral palsy. Pediatr Neurol 2015; 52: 333-7.
    1. Vander Zwart KE, Geytenbeek JJ, de Kleijn M, et al. Reliability of the Dutch-language version of the Communication Function Classification System and its association with language comprehension and method of communication. Dev Med Child Neurol 2016; 58: 180-8.
    1. Virella D, Pennington L, Andersen GL, et al. Classification systems of communication for use in epidemiological surveillance of children with cerebral palsy. Dev Med Child Neurol 2016; 58: 285-91.
    1. Wood E, Rosenbaum P. The gross motor function classification system for cerebral palsy: a study of reliability and stability over time. Dev Med Child Neurol 2000; 42: 292-6.
    1. Mayson TA, Ward V, Davies KR, et al. Reliability of retrospective assignment of gross motor function classification system scores. Dev Neurorehabil 2013; 16: 207-9.
    1. McDowell BC, Kerr C, Parkes J. Interobserver agreement of the Gross Motor Function Classification System in an ambulant population of children with cerebral palsy. Dev Med Child Neurol 2007; 49: 528-33.
    1. Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Guillemin F, Ferraz MB. Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2000; 25: 3186-91.
    1. Wild D, Grove A, Martin M, et al. Principles of good practice for the translation and cultural adaptation process for patient-reported outcomes (PRO) measures: report of the ISPOR Task Force for Translation and Cultural Adaptation. Value Health 2005; 8: 94-104.
    1. Guillemin F, Bombardier C, Beaton D. Cross-cultural adaptation of health-related quality of life measures: literature review and proposed guidelines. J Clin Epidemiol 1993; 46: 1417-32.
    1. Russell DJ, Rosenbaum PL, Cadman DT, Gowland C, Hardy S, Jarvis S. The gross motor function measure: a means to evaluate the effects of physical therapy. Dev Med Child Neurol 1989; 31: 341-52.
    1. Krumlinde-Sundholm L, Holmefur M, Kottorp A, Eliasson A-C. The Assisting Hand Assessment: current evidence of validity, reliability, and responsiveness to change. Dev Med Child Neurol 2007; 49: 259-64.
    1. Hanna SE, Rosenbaum PL, Bartlett DJ, et al. Stability and decline in gross motor function among children and youth with cerebral palsy aged 2 to 21 years. Dev Med Child Neurol 2009; 51: 295-302.
    1. Towns M, Rosenbaum P, Palisano R, Wright FV. Should the Gross Motor Function Classification System be used for children who do not have cerebral palsy? Dev Med Child Neurol 2018; 60: 147-54.
    1. Petersen MA, Groenvold M, Bjorner JB, et al. Use of differential item functioning analysis to assess the equivalence of translations of a questionnaire. Qual Life Res 2003; 12: 373-85.
    1. Pin TW, Elmasry J, Lewis J. Efficacy of botulinum toxin A in children with cerebral palsy in Gross Motor Function Classification System levels IV and V: a systematic review. Dev Med Child Neurol 2013; 55: 304-13.
    1. Roostaei M, Baharlouei H, Azadi H, Fragala-Pinkham MA. Effects of aquatic intervention on gross motor skills in children with cerebral palsy: a systematic review. Phys Occup Ther Pediatr 2017; 37: 496-515.
    1. von Hippel PT. The heterogeneity statistic I2 can be biased in small meta-analyses. BMC Med Res Methodol 2015; 15: 35.
    1. Riley RD, Higgins JPT, Deeks JJ. Interpretation of random effects meta-analyses. BMJ 2011; 342: d549.

Source: PubMed

Szponzorok és közreműködők

Egészségi állapot

Kábítószer-beavatkozások

3
Iratkozz fel