The many languages of developmental disability research

Dan, Bernard

doi:10.1111/dmcn.15231

Cited by 4 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Our findings resulted from the selection of CSRs according to the methods framed by the WHO Rehabilitation Programme and Cochrane Rehabilitation. We exclusively included CSRs because they represent the criterion standard among systematic reviews because of the high‐quality of their methodology; this could limit the generalizability of the findings and investigated interventions 46 . However, the uniformity of the Cochrane methodology gives coherence to the overview and is currently suggested by the WHO.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We exclusively included CSRs because they represent the criterion standard among systematic reviews because of the high-quality of their methodology; this could limit the generalizability of the findings and investigated interventions. 46 However, the uniformity of the Cochrane methodology gives coherence to the overview and is currently suggested by the WHO. Not providing a full evidence map that should start from an a priori grid developed according to a specific methodology, including all the possible outcomes and interventions, is another limitation.…”

Section: Strengths and Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Overview of Cochrane systematic reviews for rehabilitation interventions in individuals with cerebral palsy: A mapping synthesis

Liguori

Young

Arienti

et al. 2023

Develop Med Child Neuro

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

AimThis overview of Cochrane systematic reviews (CSRs) reports on current evidence on the effectiveness of rehabilitation interventions for individuals with cerebral palsy (CP) and the quality of the evidence.MethodFollowing the inclusion criteria defined by the World Health Organization, all CSRs tagged in the Cochrane Rehabilitation database that were relevant for individuals with CP were included. A mapping synthesis was used to group outcomes and comparisons of included CSRs indicating the effect of rehabilitation interventions and the certainty of evidence.ResultsA total of eight CSRs were included in the evidence map. The effect of interventions varied across comparisons and the certainty of evidence was inconsistent, ranging from high to very low. The best evidence was found for botulinum neurotoxin A (BoNT‐A) combined with occupational therapy in the management of spasticity. However, the effect of BoNT‐A on drooling and salivation remains unclear. A paucity of randomized controlled trials studying treatments for both dystonia and postural deformities was noted.InterpretationThis review emphasizes the need to further investigate the effectiveness and cost–benefit of rehabilitation interventions for individuals with CP.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Strengths and Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Overview of Cochrane systematic reviews for rehabilitation interventions in individuals with cerebral palsy: A mapping synthesis

Liguori

Young

Arienti

et al. 2023

Develop Med Child Neuro

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Language should not be restricted at the search level because this can limit the breadth of our understanding of a body of evidence. 13,14 However, consideration must be given to language bias (i.e. different results in studies published in different languages); its implications may vary depending on the research question and discipline investigated.…”

Section: Com Pr Eh E Nsi V E N E Ssmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Careful consideration should be given to inclusion of multiple research designs and information that goes beyond published journal articles, for example, gray literature, registry‐deposited results, or clinical trial reports. Language should not be restricted at the search level because this can limit the breadth of our understanding of a body of evidence 13,14 . However, consideration must be given to language bias (i.e.…”

Section: Comprehensivenessmentioning

confidence: 99%

Principles for good scholarship in systematic reviews

Kolaski,

Romeiser Logan,

Ioannidis

2023

Develop Med Child Neuro

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many sources document problems that jeopardize the trustworthiness of systematic reviews. This is a major concern given their potential to influence patient care and impact people's lives. Responsibility for producing trustworthy conclusions on the evidence in systematic reviews is borne primarily by authors who need the necessary training and resources to correctly report on the current knowledge base. Peer reviewers and editors are also accountable; they must ensure that systematic reviews are accurate by demonstrating proper methods. To support all these stakeholders, we attempt to distill the sprawling guidance that is currently available in our recent co‐publication about best tools and practices for systematic reviews. We specifically address how to meet methodological conduct standards applicable to key components of systematic reviews. In this complementary invited review, we place these standards in the context of good scholarship principles for systematic review development. Our intention is to reach a broad audience and potentially improve the trustworthiness of evidence syntheses published in the developmental medicine literature and beyond.

show abstract

“…For those of us who are clinicians, this idea is beautifully captured in the wisdom of a parent who said: ‘You have textbooks, we have storybooks.’ 1 The importance of context is equally true in all our academic work. We take for granted the language of publication 2 and often restrict our literature searches to English reports, although there is now an expectation that we be more inclusionary in our explorations of review topics. We increasingly identify studies from low‐ and middle‐income countries in recognition of their distinctness in regard to income, language, resources, cultural diversity, etc.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%