Systematic Review of Clinical Guidelines Related to Care of Individuals With Cerebral Palsy as Part of the World Health Organization Efforts to Develop a Global Package of Interventions for Rehabilitation

Objective: The World Health Organization's (WHO) Rehabilitation 2030 initiative is working to develop a set of evidence-based interventions selected from clinical practice guidelines for Universal Health Coverage. As an initial step, the WHO Rehabilitation Programme and Cochrane Rehabilitation convened global content experts to conduct systematic reviews of clinical practice guidelines for 20 chronic health conditions, including cerebral palsy. Data Sources: Six scientific databases (Pubmed, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science, PEDro, CINAHL), Google Scholar, guideline databases, and professional society websites were searched. Study Selection: A search strategy was implemented to identify clinical practice guidelines for cerebral palsy across the lifespan published within 10 years in English. Standardized spreadsheets were provided for process documentation, data entry, and tabulation of the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) tool. Each step was completed by 2 or more group members, with disagreements resolved by discussion. Initially, 13 guidelines were identified. Five did not meet the AGREE II established threshold or criteria for inclusion. Further review by the WHO eliminated 3 more, resulting in 5 remaining guidelines. Data Extraction: All 339 recommendations from the 5 final guidelines, with type (assessment, intervention, or service), strength, and quality of evidence, were extracted, and an International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health Functioning (ICF) category was assigned to each. Data Synthesis: Most guidelines addressed mobility functions, with comorbid conditions and lifespan considerations also included. However, most were at the level of body functions. No guideline focused specifically on physical or occupational therapies to improve activity and participation, despite their prevalence in rehabilitation. Conclusions: Despite the great need for high quality guidelines, this review demonstrated the limited number and range of interventions and lack of explicit use of the ICF during development of guidelines identified here. A lack of guidelines, however, does not necessarily indicate a lack of evidence. Further evidence review and development based on identified gaps and stakeholder priorities are needed. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 2021;102:1764-74 (c) 2021 Published by Elsevier Inc. on behalf of the American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine