Identify the types and dosage of vestibular stimulation interventions in persons with cerebral palsy (CP), and establish the efficacy of these interventions on balance and function. Materials and Methods Thissystematic review followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols to search for studies evaluating vestibular stimulation interventions in persons with CP. Information sources included MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, clinicaltrials.gov and the World Health Organisation registry. Methodological quality was assessed by two independent reviewers using the Methodological Index of Non-Randomised Studies (MINORS) and Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. ResultsFive articles were included. Three randomised studies were judged to have high risk of bias in at least one domain of the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. Two non-randomised studies were rated as low methodological quality using the MINORS tool. All studies used exercise-based vestibular stimulation, but there was little homogeneity regarding dosage. Findings related to efficacy of vestibular stimulation were inconsistent. ConclusionsClinical practice recommendations cannot be made due to lack of high quality studies and heterogeneity of treatment protocols. Future research should address theory-driven selection of intervention, establish dosage, use psychometrically robust tools and include all ages of persons with CP.

No abstract

No abstract

Background Research suggests electrical Vestibular Nerve Stimulation (VeNS) may improve balance for people with neurological impairments. This study aimed to assess the feasibility and acceptability of a VeNS headset protocol in children with cerebral palsy (CP). Methods Children aged 5–18 years with ambulant CP, their parents, and healthcare professionals were recruited via social media. Children completed a battery of balance tests and wore a sham VeNS headset one hour per day for four weeks. Perspectives on the balance tests and headset were ascertained from children, parents and healthcare professionals using semi-structured interviews. Interview data were analysed thematically. Results Two families and four healthcare professionals participated. Balance outcome measures were fully completed and deemed acceptable. Adherence with wearing the headset was 89–100% but discomfort with self-adhesive electrodes was reported. Four themes emerged from interview data: headset issues, perceptions about VeNS, the importance of balance, and modifications for future study. Conclusions Although the VeNS headset had high acceptability, the volunteer sample was small, potentially suggesting limited interest in VeNS as a treatment for children with CP, or reluctance to trial a ‘non-active’ headset. Recruitment via clinicians known to the family and use of an ‘active’ headset may increase participation in future research.