Paediatric Rehab Research Group, Rehabilitation Centre for Children and Adolescents, University Children's Hospital Zurich, Affoltern am Albis, Switzerland.
Children's Research Centre CRC, University Children's Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
PLoS One. 2019 Jan 22;14(1):e0209979. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0209979. eCollection 2019.
We aimed to identify and evaluate the quality and evidence of the motor learning literature about intervention studies regarding the contextual interference (CI) effect (blocked vs. random practice order) in children with brain lesions and typically developing (TD) children.
Eight databases (Cinahl, Cochrane, Embase, PubMed, Pedro, PsycINFO, Scopus and Web of Knowledge) were searched systematically with predefined search terms. Controlled studies examining the CI effect in children (with brain lesions or TD) were included. Evidence level, conduct quality, and risk of bias were evaluated by two authors independently. A best evidence synthesis was performed.
Twenty-five papers evaluating TD children were included. One of these studies also assessed children with cerebral palsy. Evidence levels were I, II, or III. Conduct quality was low and the risk of bias high, due to methodological issues in the study designs or poor description thereof. Best evidence synthesis showed mainly no or conflicting evidence. Single tasks showed limited to moderate evidence supporting the CI effect in TD children.
There is a severe limitation of good-quality evidence about the CI effect in children who practice different tasks in one session, especially in children with brain lesions.
我们旨在识别和评估关于干预研究中运动学习文献的质量和证据，这些研究涉及脑损伤儿童和正常发育（TD）儿童的情境干扰（CI）效应（分组练习与随机练习顺序）。
系统地在八个数据库（Cinahl、Cochrane、Embase、PubMed、Pedro、PsycINFO、Scopus 和 Web of Knowledge）中使用预设的搜索词进行搜索。纳入了评估儿童（脑损伤或 TD）CI 效应的对照研究。两名作者独立评估证据水平、实施质量和偏倚风险。进行了最佳证据综合。
纳入了 25 篇评估 TD 儿童的论文。其中一项研究还评估了脑瘫儿童。证据水平为 I、II 或 III 级。由于研究设计中的方法学问题或描述不佳，实施质量低，偏倚风险高。最佳证据综合主要显示无或相互矛盾的证据。单一任务仅显示出有限到中等的证据支持 TD 儿童的 CI 效应。
在一次练习中进行不同任务的儿童的 CI 效应的高质量证据严重受限，尤其是脑损伤儿童。
