Uncertainties regarding cerebral palsy diagnosis: opportunities to operationalize the consensus definition

Abstract

AbstractBackground and ObjectivesCerebral 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.MethodsWe 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.ResultsOf 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?DiscussionWe 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.