Related Experiment Video
Updated: Dec 9, 2025
Author Spotlight: Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Combined with Movement Observation in Cerebral Palsy
Published on: August 9, 2024
Effect of action observation therapy on motor function in children with cerebral palsy: a systematic review of
Naglaa Abdelhaleem1, Samar Taher2, Menna Mahmoud3
1Department of Pediatrics, Faculty of Physical Therapy, Cairo University, Giza, Egypt.
Insights
Action Observation Therapy shows no significant benefit for children with cerebral palsy rehabilitation. Further high-quality research is needed due to methodological limitations and study variations.
Area of Science:
- Neurorehabilitation
- Pediatric Physical Therapy
- Evidence-Based Practice
Background:
- Cerebral Palsy (CP) is a common neurodevelopmental disorder affecting motor function in children.
- Action Observation Therapy (AOT) is a potential intervention strategy for improving motor skills in individuals with CP.
- The effectiveness of AOT in pediatric CP rehabilitation remains to be conclusively determined.
Purpose of the Study:
- To systematically review and meta-analyze the evidence on the efficacy of Action Observation Therapy for the rehabilitation of children diagnosed with Cerebral Palsy.
Main Methods:
- A systematic review and meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) were conducted.
- Studies were identified through comprehensive database searches up to July 2020.
- Methodological quality was assessed using the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) scale, and outcomes were classified using the International Classification of Functioning (ICF) framework.
Main Results:
- Twelve RCTs involving 307 participants were included; six were part of the meta-analysis.
- Meta-analysis revealed no significant differences between AOT and control groups for capacity, actual performance, or perceived performance at post-treatment and follow-up.
- Overall effect on the activity domain was non-significant immediately post-treatment and at follow-up.
Conclusions:
- Current evidence does not support the effectiveness of Action Observation Therapy in the rehabilitation of children with Cerebral Palsy.
- Limitations in methodological quality and heterogeneity among studies preclude drawing firm conclusions.
- Further rigorous research is warranted to ascertain the potential benefits of AOT in this population.
Objective:
To evaluate the evidence of using Action Observation Therapy in the rehabilitation of children with Cerebral Palsy.
Study Design:
Systematic review with meta-analysis of Randomised Controlled Trials.
Methods:
For the purpose of identifying relevant studies, six databases were searched from inception until July 2020. The methodological quality was assessed by Physiotherapy Evidence Database scale. The outcomes were classified within the framework of the International Classification of Functioning. A pooled meta-analysis was performed on studies that demonstrated homogeneity.
Results:
Twelve randomised controlled trials with 307 participants were included with six of them were included in the meta-analysis. Non-significant difference between the groups was demonstrated by meta-analysis. Results of capacity assessed in post treatment and follow up evaluation were (0.06, -0.22 to 0.34, 95% (CI); P = 0.69 and (-0.35, -0.96 to 0.27, 95% (CI); P = 0.27); respectively. Actual performance in post-treatment and follow up were (0.10, -0.22 to 0.48, 95% (CI); P = 0.62) and (0.01, -0.40 to 0.41, 95% (CI); P = 0.97); respectively. Perceived performance evaluated using (ABILHAND-KIDS) were (0.30, -0.28 to 0.89, 95% (CI); P = 0.31) and (0.15, -0.43 to 0.73, 95% (CI); P = 0.61) for post treatment and follow up; respectively. Overall effect on activity domain was (0.08, -0.11 to 0.28, 95% (CI); P = 0.86) immediately and (0.04, -0.33 to 0.26, 95% (CI); P = 0.49) at follow-up; respectively.
Conclusion:
No evidence of benefit had been found to draw a firm conclusion regarding the effectiveness of action observation therapy in the rehabilitation of children with cerebral palsy due to limitations in methodological quality and variations between studies.
