92 CHAPTER 4 Table 1. Patient characteristics (n = 50) Age, y, mean ± SD 12.1 ± 3.5 Female sex, n (%) Male 22 (44.0) Female 28 (56.0) Main diagnosis, n (%) Cerebral Palsy 29 (58.0) Other neurodevelopmental disability 21 (42.0) Degree of disability, n (%) Ambulant 16 (32.0) Non-ambulant 34 (68.0) Developmental age, n (%) <4 y 33 (66.0) > 4 y 17 (34.0) Epilepsy, n (%) Controlled 26 (52.0) Intractable 6 (12.0) No 18 (36.0) Very severe speech disorder (VSSD), n (%) Yes 32 (64.0) No 18 (36.0) Poor posture (anteflexion), n (%) Yes 21 (42.0) No 24 (48.0) Missing 5 (10.0) Tongue protrusion, n (%) Permanent - Often 22 (44.0) Sometimes - Never 24 (48.0) Missing 4 (8.0) Non-ambulatory status = Gross Motor Function Classification System score IV-V; VSSD = Very severe speech disorder defined as no speech, anarthria or very severe dysarthria vs. severe-moderate-mildno dysarthria. Tongue protrusion: Permanent–often vs. sometimes–never. Prediction model for treatment success Treatment success, defined as a ≥ 50% VAS and/or DQ reduction from baseline to 32 weeks, was reached in 24 patients (60.0%, n = 40). Analogous to our earlier studies, variables potentially related to treatment success were analyzed in a logistic regression. Based on previous literature, six variables were entered in the logistic regression analyses. Univariate analyses showed no multicollinearity between the included variables. Univariate analyses showed that patients with a poor posture (anteflexion) profit least from 2-DL (table 2).
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjY0ODMw