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. Raters were randomly assigned to one of two pairs to resolve discrepancies. The level of agreement between individual raters and pairs was calculated using kappa (α=0.05) and intraclass correlations (ICCs; α=0.05). Spearman's rank correlation coefficient was calculated to evaluate the relationship between raters' categorization of quality categories using the two tools. RESULTS: There was acceptable agreement between raters (κ=0.77; p<0.001; ICC=0.90) and between assigned pairs (κ=0.83; p<0.001; ICC=0.96) for the level of evidence ratings. There was acceptable agreement between pairs for four of the seven conduct questions (κ=0.53-0.87). ICCs (all raters) for conduct category ratings (weak, moderate, and strong) also indicated good agreement (ICC=0.76). Spearman's rho indicated a significant positive correlation for the overall quality category comparisons of the two tools (0.52; p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The AACPDM rating system has acceptable interrater reliability. Evaluation of its study quality ratings demonstrated reasonable agreement when compared with a similar tool.

Outcome measures used in studies of botulinum toxin in childhood cerebral palsy: a systematic review.

This literature review uses the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health to describe the quality and variety of the studies of botulinum toxin in children with cerebral palsy since 2001. Articles were identified via electronic query and then reviewed for strength of evidence and classification of outcome measures. The distribution of levels of evidence for the 63 articles was I (n = 8), II (n = 12), III (n = 21), and IV (n = 22). One or more measurements were used in the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health domains of body structure and function (47 papers), activity (47 papers), participation (12 papers), and environmental/personal factors (10 papers). A total of 67% of all outcomes demonstrated a significant difference (I 49%, II 39%, III 74%, IV 88%). This review illustrates that few studies provide a high level of evidence and that outcomes focus on arenas such as spasticity or range of motion rather than activity or participation domains such as walking.