Abstract
Background and Objectives 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 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 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 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.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This study was funded by NINDS 1K08NS117850-01A1
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
IRB of Washington University gave ethical approval for this work.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
Anonymized data will be shared by request from any qualified investigator.
