↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Trihexyphenidyl for dystonia in cerebral palsy

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (62nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter
wikipedia
3 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
226 Mendeley
Title
Trihexyphenidyl for dystonia in cerebral palsy
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 2018
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd012430.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Adrienne R Harvey, Louise B Baker, Dinah Susan Reddihough, Adam Scheinberg, Katrina Williams

Abstract

Cerebral palsy occurs in up to 2.1 of every 1000 live births and encompasses a range of motor problems and movement disorders. One commonly occurring movement disorder amongst those with cerebral palsy is dystonia: sustained or intermittent involuntary muscle spasms and contractions that cause twisting, repetitive movements and abnormal postures. The involuntary contractions are often very painful and distressing and cause significant limitations to activity and participation.Oral medications are often the first line of medical treatment for dystonia. Trihexyphenidyl is one such medication that clinicians often use to treat dystonia in people with cerebral palsy. To assess the effects of trihexyphenidyl in people with dystonic cerebral palsy, according to the World Health Organization's (WHO) International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) domains of impairment, activity and participation. We also assessed the type and incidence of adverse effects in people taking the drug. We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, eight other databases and two trials registers in May 2017, and we checked reference lists and citations to identify additional studies. We included randomised controlled trials comparing oral trihexyphenidyl versus placebo for dystonia in cerebral palsy. We included studies in children and adults of any age with dystonic cerebral palsy, either in isolation or with the associated movement disorders of spasticity, ataxia, chorea, athetosis and/or hypotonia. We included studies regardless of whether or not the study authors specified the method used to diagnose dystonia in their study population. Primary outcomes were change in dystonia and adverse effects. Secondary outcomes were: activity, including mobility and upper limb function; participation in activities of daily living; pain; and quality of life. We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We identified one study, which was set in Australia, that met the inclusion criteria. This was a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, cross-over trial in 16 children (10 boys and 6 girls) with predominant dystonic cerebral palsy and a mean age of 9 years (standard deviation 4.3 years, range 2 to 17 years). We considered the trial to be at low risk of selection, performance, detection, attrition, reporting and other sources of bias. We rated the GRADE quality of the evidence as low.We found no difference in mean follow-up scores for change in dystonia as measured by the Barry Albright Dystonia Scale (BADS), which assesses eight body regions for dystonia on a 5-point scale (0 = none to 4 = severe), resulting in a total score of 0 to 32. The BADS score was 2.67 points higher (95% confidence interval (CI) -2.55 to 7.90; low-quality evidence), that is, worse dystonia, in the treated group. Trihexyphenidyl may be associated with an increased risk of adverse effects (risk ratio 2.54, 95% CI 1.38 to 4.67; low-quality evidence).There was no difference in mean follow-up scores for upper limb function as measured by the Quality of Upper Extremity Skills Test, which has four domains that collectively assess 36 items (each scored 1 or 2) and produces a total score of 0 to 100. The score in the treated group was 4.62 points lower (95% CI -10.98 to 20.22; low-quality evidence), corresponding to worse function, than in the control group. We found low-quality evidence for improved participation (as represented by higher scores) in the treated group in activities of daily living, as measured by three tools: 18.86 points higher (95% CI 5.68 to 32.03) for the Goal Attainment Scale (up to five functional goals scored on 5-point scale (-2 = much less than expected to +2 = much more than expected)), 2.91 points higher (95% CI 1.01 to 4.82) for the satisfaction subscale of the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM; satisfaction with performance in up to five problem areas scored on a 10-point scale (1 = not satisfied at all to 10 = extremely satisfied)), and 2.24 points higher (95% CI 0.64 to 3.84) for performance subscale of the COPM (performance in up to five problem areas scored on a 10-point scale (1 = not able to do to; 10 = able to do extremely well)).The study did not report on pain or quality of life. At present, there is insufficient evidence regarding the effectiveness of trihexyphenidyl for people with cerebral palsy for the outcomes of: change in dystonia, adverse effects, increased upper limb function and improved participation in activities of daily living. The study did not measure pain or quality of life. There is a need for larger randomised, controlled, multicentre trials that also examine the effect on pain and quality of life in order to determine the effectiveness of trihexyphenidyl for people with cerebral palsy.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 226 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 226 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 39 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 25 11%
Student > Bachelor 22 10%
Researcher 19 8%
Student > Postgraduate 13 6%
Other 48 21%
Unknown 60 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 56 25%
Nursing and Health Professions 35 15%
Social Sciences 11 5%
Psychology 9 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 8 4%
Other 27 12%
Unknown 80 35%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 05 February 2021.
All research outputs
#5,609,798
of 18,496,698 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#7,926
of 11,839 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#106,283
of 291,655 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#143
of 176 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 18,496,698 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,839 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 26.0. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 291,655 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 176 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.