Psychometric properties of clinician-reported and performance-based outcomes cited in a scoping review on spinal manipulation and mobilization for pediatric populations with diverse medical conditions: a systematic review

References

• Chiropractic Board. Chiropractic board of Australia policy statement: interim policy on spinal manipulation for infants and young children; Melbourne, 2019; p. 1–2. Available from: https://www.chiropracticboard.gov.au/Codes-guidelines/Position-statements/Interim-policy-on-spinal-manipulation.aspx.
   Google Scholar
• Milne N, Longeri L, Patel A, et al. Spinal manipulation and mobilisation in the treatment of infants, children, and adolescents: a systematic scoping review. BioMed Central Pediatr. 2022 Dec;22(1):1–24. doi: 10.1186/s12887-022-03781-6
   Google Scholar
• McKown S, Acquadro C, Anfray C, et al. Good practices for the translation, cultural adaptation, and linguistic validation of clinician-reported outcome, observer-reported outcome, and performance outcome measures. J Patient-Reported Outcomes. 2020 Dec;4(1):1–8. doi: 10.1186/s41687-020-00248-z
   Google Scholar
• Mokkink LB, Prinsen C, Patrick DL et al. COSMIN methodology for systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). User Manual. 2018 Feb;78(1): 27–29.
   Google Scholar
• Terwee CB, PrinsenCA,Chiarotto A, de Vet HC, Bouter LM, Alonso J, Westerman MJ, Patrick DL, Mokkink LB. COSIM methodology for assessing the content validity of PROMs – user manual. 2018 http://www/cosmin.nl/.
   Google Scholar
• Hayton T, Gross AR, Basson A, et al. Psychometric measurement properties of patient-reported and observer-reported outcome measures for spinal mobilisations and manipulation on paediatric subjects with diverse medical conditions: a systematic review. J Manual Manipulative Ther. 2023. in press.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Syst Rev. 2021 Dec;10(1):1–1. doi: 10.1186/s13643-021-01626-4
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mokkink LB, Prinsen CA, Patrick DL et al. COSMIN Risk of Bias checklist for systematic reviews of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures. 27. Qual Life Res; 2019. pp. 1171–1179. doi:10.1007/s11136-017-1765-4.
   Google Scholar
• Terwee CB, Jansma EP, Riphagen II, et al. Development of a methodological PubMed search filter for finding studies on measurement properties of measurement instruments. Qual Life Res. 2009 Oct;18(8):1115–1123. doi: 10.1007/s11136-009-9528-5
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bartels B, De Groot JF, Terwee CB. The six-minute walk test in chronic pediatric conditions: a systematic review of measurement properties. Phys Ther. 2013 Apr 1;93(4):529–541. doi: 10.2522/ptj.20120210
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• D’hondt NE, Pool JJ, Kiers H, et al. Validity of clinical measurement instruments assessing scapular function: insufficient evidence to recommend any instrument for assessing scapular posture, movement, and dysfunction—a systematic review. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2020 Nov;50(11):632–641. doi: 10.2519/jospt.2020.9265
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aimsamrarn P, Janyachareon T, Rattanathanthong K, et al. Cultural translation and adaptation of the Alberta Infant motor Scale Thai version. Early Hum Dev. 2019 Mar 1;130:65–70. doi: 10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2019.01.018
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Albuquerque PL, Guerra MQF, Lima MC, et al. Concurrent validity of the Alberta Infant motor Scale to detect delayed gross motor development in preterm infants: a comparative study with the Bayley III. Dev Neurorehabil. 2018;21(6):408–414. doi: 10.1080/17518423.2017.1323974
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Almeida KM, Dutra MV, Mello RR, et al. Concurrent validity and reliability of the Alberta Infant motor Scale in premature infants. J Pediatr (Rio J). 2008;84(5):442–448. doi: 10.2223/JPED.1836
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bartlett DJ, Fanning JEK. Use of the Alberta Infant motor Scale to characterize the motor development of infants born preterm at eight months corrected age. Phys Occup Ther Pediatr. 2003;23(4):31–45. doi: 10.1080/J006v23n04_03
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Blanchard Y, Neilan E, Busanich J, et al. Interrater reliability of early intervention providers scoring the Alberta Infant motor Scale. Pediatr Phys Ther. 2004 Apr 1;16(1):13–18. doi: 10.1097/01.PEP.0000113272.34023.56
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Boonzaaijer M, van Dam E, van Haastert IC, et al. Concurrent validity between live and home video observations using the Alberta Infant motor Scale. Pediatr Phys Ther. 2017 Apr;29(2):146. doi: 10.1097/PEP.0000000000000363
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Campbell SK, Kolobe TH. Concurrent validity of the test of infant motor performance with the Alberta Infant Motor Scale. Pediatr Phys Ther. 2000 Apr 1;12(1):2–9. doi: 10.1097/00001577-200012010-00002
   Google Scholar
• Campbell SK, Kolobe TH, Wright BD, et al. Validity of the test of Infant motor performance for prediction of 6-, 9- and 12-month scores on the Alberta Infant motor Scale. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2002 Apr;44(4):263–272. doi: 10.1017/S0012162201002043
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Campos D, Santos DC, Gonçalves VM, et al. Agreement between scales for screening and diagnosis of motor development at 6 months. J Pediatr (Rio J). 2006;82(6):470–474. doi: 10.2223/JPED.1567
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Chiquetti EM, Valentini NC, Saccani R. Validation and reliability of the test of infant motor performance for Brazilian infants. Phys Occup Ther Pediatr. 2020 Jul 3;40(4):470–485. doi: 10.1080/01942638.2020.1711843
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Darrah JM. Feasibility of early screening for neuromotor problems in at-risk infants: predictive validity of the Alberta Infant motor Scale. 1996. Available from: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=rzh&AN=109842973&scope=site.
   Google Scholar
• Darrah J, Piper M, Watt MJ. Assessment of gross motor skills of at‐risk infants: predictive validity of the Alberta Infant motor Scale. Dev Med Child Neurol. 1998 Jul;40(7):485–491. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8749.1998.tb15399.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Darrah J, Redfern L, Maguire TO, et al. Intra-individual stability of rate of gross motor development in full-term infants. Early Hum Dev. 1998b Sep 1;52(2):169–179. doi: 10.1016/S0378-3782(98)00028-0
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Darrah J, Bartlett D, Maguire TO, et al. Have infant gross motor abilities changed in 20 years? A re‐evaluation of the Alberta Infant motor Scale normative values. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2014 Sep;56(9):877–881. doi: 10.1111/dmcn.12452
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dumas HM, Fragala-Pinkham MA, Rosen EL, et al. Pediatric evaluation of Disability Inventory Computer Adaptive Test (PEDI-CAT) and Alberta Infant Motor Scale (AIMS): validity and responsiveness. Phys Ther. 2015 Nov 1;95(11):1559–1568. doi: 10.2522/ptj.20140339
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fauls JR, Thompson BL, Johnston LM. Validity of the ages and stages questionnaire to identify young children with gross motor difficulties who require physiotherapy assessment. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2020 Jul;62(7):837–844. doi: 10.1111/dmcn.14480
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fetters L, Tronick EZ. Discriminate power of the Alberta Infant motor Scale and the Movement assessment of infants for prediction of Peabody Gross motor Scale scores of infants exposed in utero to cocaine. Pediatr Phys Ther. 2000 Apr 1;12(1):16–23. doi: 10.1097/00001577-200012010-00004
   Google Scholar
• Fleuren KM, Smit LS, Stijnen TH, et al. New reference values for the Alberta Infant motor Scale need to be established. Acta Paediatrica. 2007 Mar;96(3):424–427. doi: 10.1111/j.1651-2227.2007.00111.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ga HY, Kwon JY. A comparison of the Korean-ages and stages questionnaires and Denver developmental delay screening test. Ann Rehabil Med. 2011 Jun 30;35(3):369–374. doi: 10.5535/arm.2011.35.3.369
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Harris SR, Backman CL, Mayson TA. Comparative predictive validity of the Harris Infant neuromotor test and the Alberta Infant motor Scale. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2010;52(5):462–467. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8749.2009.03518.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heineman KR, Bos AF, Hadders‐Algra M. The Infant motor profile: a standardized and qualitative method to assess motor behaviour in infancy. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2008 Apr;50(4):275–282. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8749.2008.02035.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heineman KR, Middelburg KJ, Bos AF, et al. Reliability and concurrent validity of the Infant motor profile. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2013 Jun;55(6):539–545. doi: 10.1111/dmcn.12100
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoskens J, Klingels K, Smits-Engelsman B. Validity and cross-cultural differences of the Bayley scales of Infant and toddler development, third Edition in typically developing infants. Early Hum Dev. 2018 Oct 1;125:17–25.45. doi: 10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2018.07.002
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jeng SF, Yau KI, Chen LC, et al. Alberta Infant Motor Scale: reliability and validity when used on preterm infants in Taiwan. Phys Ther. 2000 Feb 1;80(2):168–178. doi: 10.1093/ptj/80.2.168
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krosschell KJ, Bosch M, Nelson L, et al. Motor function test reliability during the NeuroNEXT spinal muscular atrophy infant biomarker study. JND. 2018 Jan 1;5(4):509–521. doi: 10.3233/JND-180327
   Google Scholar
• Lackovic M, Nikolic D, Filimonovic D, et al. Reliability, consistency and temporal stability of Alberta Infant motor Scale in Serbian infants. Children. 2020 Mar 2;7(3):16. doi: 10.3390/children7030016
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lefebvre F, Gagnon MM, Luu TM, et al. In extremely preterm infants, do the Movement assessment of infants and the Alberta Infant motor Scale predict 18-month outcomes using the Bayley-III? Early Hum Dev. 2016 Mar 1;94:13–17. doi: 10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2016.01.012
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morales-Monforte E, Bagur-Calafat C, Suc-Lerin N, et al. The Spanish version of the Alberta Infant Motor Scale: validity and reliability analysis. Dev Neurorehabil. 2017 Feb 17;20(2):76–82. doi: 10.3109/17518423.2015.1066461
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pai-Jun ML, Campbell SK. Examination of the item structure of the Alberta Infant motor Scale. Pediatr Phys Ther. 2004 Apr 1;16(1):31–38. doi: 10.1097/01.PEP.0000114843.92102.98
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Pin TW, De Valle K, Eldridge B, et al. Clinimetric properties of the Alberta Infant Motor Scale in infants born preterm. Pediatr Phys Ther. 2010 Oct 1;22(3):278–286. doi: 10.1097/PEP.0b013e3181e94481
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Pin TW, Butler PB, Cheung HM, et al. Longitudinal development of segmental trunk control in full term and preterm infants-a pilot study: part II. Dev Neurorehabil. 2020 Apr 2;23(3):193–200. doi: 10.1080/17518423.2019.1629661
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Piper MC, Pinnell LE, Darrah J, et al. Construction and validation of the Alberta Infant motor Scale (AIMS). Can J Public Health = Revue Canadienne de Sante Publique. 1992 Jul 1;83:S46–50.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rizzi R, Menici V, Cioni ML, et al. Concurrent and predictive validity of the infant motor profile in infants at risk of neurodevelopmental disorders. BMC Pediatr. 2021 Dec;21(1):1–1. doi: 10.1186/s12887-021-02522-5
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saccani R, Valentini NC. Reference curves for the Brazilian Alberta Infant motor Scale: percentiles for clinical description and follow-up over time. J Pediatr (Rio J). 2012;88:40–47. doi: 10.2223/JPED.2142
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Quezada-Villalobos L, Soto-García I, Escobar-Cabello M, et al. ‘Confiabilidad interevaluador’ de la Escala Motora Infantil de Alberta en niños de término y pretérmino de la provincia de Talca - Chile. Revista Ciencias de la Salud. 2010;8(2):21–32.
   Google Scholar
• Siegle CB, de Sá CD. Concurrent validity between instruments of assessment of motor development in infants exposed to HIV. Infant Behav Dev. 2018 Feb 1;50:198–206. doi: 10.1016/j.infbeh.2018.01.005
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Silva LP, Maia PC, Lopes MM, et al. Intraclass reliability of the Alberta Infant motor Scale in the Brazilian version. Revista da Escola de Enfermagem da USP. 2013;47(5):1046–1051. doi: 10.1590/S0080-623420130000500006
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spittle AJ, Doyle LW, Boyd RN. A systematic review of the clinimetric properties of neuromotor assessments for preterm infants during the first year of life. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2008 Apr;50(4):254–266. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8749.2008.02025.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Suir I, Boonzaaijer M, Nijmolen P, et al. Cross-cultural validity: Canadian norm values of the Alberta Infant motor Scale evaluated for Dutch infants. Pediatr Phys Ther. 2019 Oct 1;31(4):354–358. doi: 10.1097/PEP.0000000000000637
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Syrengelas D, Kalampoki V, Kleisiouni P, et al. Alberta Infant motor Scale (AIMS) performance of Greek preterm infants: comparisons with full-term infants of the same nationality and impact of prematurity-related morbidity factors. Phys Ther. 2016 Jul 1;96(7):1102–1108. doi: 10.2522/ptj.20140494
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Syrengelas D, Siahanidou T, Kourlaba G, et al. Standardization of the Alberta Infant Motor Scale in full-term Greek infants: preliminary results. Early Hum Dev. 2010 Apr 1;86(4):245–249. doi: 10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2010.03.009
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tse L, Mayson TA, Leo S, et al. Concurrent validity of the Harris Infant neuromotor test and the Alberta Infant motor Scale. J Pediatr Nurs. 2008 Feb 1;23(1):28–36. doi: 10.1016/j.pedn.2007.07.009
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Tupsila R, Bennett S, Mato L, et al. Gross motor development of Thai healthy full-term infants aged from birth to 14 months using the Alberta Infant motor Scale: inter individual variability. Early Hum Dev. 2020 Dec 1;151:105169. doi: 10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2020.105169
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Valentini NC, Saccani R. Escala Motora Infantil de Alberta: validação para uma população gaúcha. Rev Paulista Pediatria. 2011;29(2):231–238. doi: 10.1590/S0103-05822011000200015
   Google Scholar
• Valentini NC, Saccani R. Brazilian validation of the Alberta Infant Motor Scale. Phys Ther. 2012 Mar 1;92(3):440–447. doi: 10.2522/ptj.20110036
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Hus JW, Jeukens-Visser M, Koldewijn K, et al. Comparing two motor assessment tools to evaluate neurobehavioral intervention effects in infants with very low birth weight at 1 year. Phys Ther. 2013 Nov 1;93(11):1475–1483. doi: 10.2522/ptj.20120460
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Schie PE, Becher JG, Dallmeijer AJ, et al. Motor testing at 1â??year improves the prediction of motor and mental outcome at 2â??years after perinatal hypoxicâ??ischaemic encephalopathy. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2010 Jan;52(1):54–59. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8749.2009.03302.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang H, Li H, Wang J, et al. Reliability and concurrent validity of a Chinese version of the Alberta Infant motor Scale administered to high-risk infants in China. Bio Med Res Int. 2018 Jun 13;2018:1–10. doi: 10.1155/2018/2197163.
   Google Scholar
• Yeh KK, Liu WY, Wong AM, et al. Validity of general movement assessment based on clinical and home videos. Pediatr Phys Ther. 2020 Jan 1;32(1):35–43. doi: 10.1097/PEP.0000000000000664
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Adams D, Hewell S. Maternal and professional assessment of breastfeeding. J Hum Lact. 1997 Dec;13(4):279–283. doi: 10.1177/089033449701300412
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Altuntas N, Turkyilmaz C, Yildiz H, et al. Validity and reliability of the infant breastfeeding assessment tool, the mother baby assessment tool, and the LATCH scoring system. Breast Feeding Med. 2014 May 1;9(4):191–195. doi: 10.1089/bfm.2014.0018
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chapman DJ, Doughty K, Mullin EM, et al. Reliability of lactation assessment tools applied to overweight and obese women. J Hum Lact. 2016 May;32(2):269–276. doi: 10.1177/0890334415597903
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DaConceição CM, Coca KP, Alves MD, et al. Validação para língua portuguesa do instrumento de avaliação do aleitamento materno LATCH. Acta Paul Enferm. 2017 Mar;30(2):210–216. doi: 10.1590/1982-0194201700032
   Google Scholar
• DaConceição CM, Nur M, De Amorim, et al. Cultural adaptation of breastfeeding assessment tool to the Portuguese language: ‘latch’. Pediatrics. 2018;141(1_MeetingAbstract):286. doi: 10.1542/peds.141.1MA3.286
   Google Scholar
• Dolgun G, İ̇nal S, Erdim L, et al. Reliability and validity of the Bristol breastfeeding assessment tool in the Turkish population. Midwifery. 2018 Feb 1;57:47–53. doi: 10.1016/j.midw.2017.10.007
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kumar SP, Mooney R, Wieser LJ, et al. The LATCH scoring system and prediction of breastfeeding duration. J Hum Lact. 2006 Nov;22(4):391–397. doi: 10.1177/0890334406293161
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lau Y, Htun TP, Lim PI, et al. Psychometric evaluation of 5-and 4-item versions of the LATCH breastfeeding assessment tool during the initial postpartum period among a multiethnic population. PLoS One. 2016 May 2;11(5):e0154331. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0154331
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Riordan JM, Koehn M. Reliability and validity testing of three breastfeeding assessment tools. J Obstet Gynaecol Gynecologic Neonatal Nur. 1997 Mar 1;26(2):181–187. doi: 10.1111/j.1552-6909.1997.tb02131.x
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Adam CJ, Izatt MT, Harvey JR, et al. Variability in Cobb angle measurements using reformatted computerized tomography scans. Spine. 2005 Jul 15;30(14):1664–1669. doi: 10.1097/01.brs.0000169449.68870.f8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Al-Bashir AK, Al-Abed MA, Amari HK, et al. Computer-based Cobb angle measurement using deflection points in adolescence idiopathic scoliosis from radiographic images. Neural Comput Appl. 2019 May;31(5):1547–1561. doi: 10.1007/s00521-018-3614-y
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Allen S, Parent E, Khorasani M, et al. Validity and reliability of active shape models for the estimation of cobb angle in patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. J Digit Imaging. 2008 Jun;21(2):208–218. doi: 10.1007/s10278-007-9026-7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brink RC, Wijdicks SPJ, Tromp IN, et al. A reliability and validity study for different coronal angles using ultrasound imaging in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine J. 2018 Jun 1;18(6):979–985. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2017.10.012
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Carvalho A, Vialle R, Thomsen L, et al. Reliability analysis for manual measurement of coronal plane deformity in adolescent scoliosis. Are 30× 90 cm plain films better than digitized small films? Eur Spine J. 2007 Oct;16(10):1615–1620. doi: 10.1007/s00586-007-0437-4
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gstoettner M, Sekyra K, Walochnik N, et al. Inter- and intraobserver reliability assessment of the Cobb angle: manual versus digital measurement tools. Eur Spine J. 2007 Oct;16(10):1587–1592. doi: 10.1007/s00586-007-0401-3
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kumar VP, Thomas T, Menon KV. Content-based image retrieval of spine radiographs with scoliosis. Clin Spine Surg. 2009 Jun 1;22(4):284–289. doi: 10.1097/BSD.0b013e31816d8148
   Google Scholar
• Livanelioglu A, Kaya F, Nabiyev V, et al. The validity and reliability of “spinal mouse” assessment of spinal curvatures in the frontal plane in pediatric adolescent idiopathic thoraco-lumbar curves. Eur Spine J. 2016 Feb;25(2):476–482. doi: 10.1007/s00586-015-3945-7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Loder RT, Spiegel D, Gutknecht S, et al. The assessment of intraobserver and interobserver error in the measurement of noncongenital scoliosis in children≤ 10 years of age. Spine. 2004 Nov 15;29(22):2548–2553. doi: 10.1097/01.brs.0000144828.72721.d8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marchetti BV, Candotti CT, Raupp EG, et al. Accuracy of a radiological evaluation method for thoracic and lumbar spinal curvatures using spinous processes. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2017 Nov 1;40(9):700–707. doi: 10.1016/j.jmpt.2017.07.013
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mehta SS, Modi HN, Srinivasalu S, et al. Interobserver and intraobserver reliability of Cobb angle measurement: endplate versus pedicle as bony landmarks for measurement: a statistical analysis. J Pediatr Orthop. 2009 Oct 1;29(7):749–754. doi: 10.1097/BPO.0b013e3181b72550
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pruijs JE, Stengs C, Keessen W. Parameter variation in stable scoliosis. Eur Spine J. 1995 Jun;4(3):176–179. doi: 10.1007/BF00298242
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Safari A, Parsaei H, Zamani A, et al. A semi-automatic algorithm for estimating cobb angle. J Biomed Phys Eng. 2019 Jun 1;9(3):317–326. doi: 10.31661/jbpe.v9i3Jun.730
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Stokes IA, Aronsson DD. Computer-assisted algorithms improve reliability of King classification and Cobb angle measurement of scoliosis. Spine. 2006 Mar 15;31(6):665–670. doi: 10.1097/01.brs.0000203708.49972.ab
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Xiaohua MH, KyeongAh J, HanSuk H, et al. A comparison of the validity and reliability between a digital radiographic imaging system and manual method in measuring the Cobb angle. Scoliosis. 2013 Sep;8(S2):1–2. doi: 10.1186/1748-7161-8-S2-O20
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Watson AW, Mac Donncha C. A reliable technique for the assessment of posture: assessment criteria for aspects of posture. J Sports Med Phys Fitness. 2000 Sep 1;40(3):260.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Snyder P, Eason JM, Philibert D, et al. Concurrent validity and reliability of the Alberta Infant motor Scale in infants at dual risk for motor delays. Phys Occup Ther Pediatr. 2008 Jan 1;28(3):267–282. doi: 10.1080/01942630802224892
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Spittle AJ, Lee KJ, Spencer-Smith M, et al. Accuracy of two motor assessments during the first year of life in preterm infants for predicting motor outcome at preschool age. PLoS One. 2015 May 13;10(5):e0125854. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0125854
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Prinsen CA, Mokkink LB, Bouter LM, et al. COSMIN guideline for systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures. Qual Life Res. 2018 May;27(5):1147–1157. doi: 10.1007/s11136-018-1798-3
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spittle AJ, Lee KJ, Spencer-Smith M, Lorefice LE, Anderson PJ, Doyle LW. Accuracy of two motor assessments during the first year of life in preterm infants for predicting motor outcome at preschool age. PLoS One. 2015 May 13;10(5):e0125854.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Snyder P, Eason JM, Philibert D, Ridgway A, McCaughey T. Concurrent validity and reliability of the Alberta Infant Motor Scale in infants at dual risk for motor delays. Physical & occupational therapy in pediatrics. 2008 Jan 1;28(3):267–82.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Báez León C, Blasco Contreras R, Martín Sequeros E, del Pozo Ayuso ML, Sánchez Conde AI, Vargas Hormigos C. Validation of the LATCH assessment tool into Spanish. Reliability analysis. Index de Enfermería. 2008;17(3):205–9.
   Google Scholar
• Watson AW, Mac Donncha C. A reliable technique for the assessment of posture: assessment criteria for aspects of posture. Journal of sports medicine and physical fitness. 2000 Sep 1;40(3):260.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Santesso N, Glenton C, Dahm P, et al. GRADE guidelines 26: informative statements to communicate the findings of systematic reviews of interventions. J Clinical Epidemiol. 2020 Mar 1;119:126–135. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.10.014
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Báez León C, Blasco Contreras R, Martín Sequeros E, et al. Validación al castellano de una escala de evaluación de la lactancia materna: el LATCH. Análisis de fiabilidad. Index Enferm. 2008;17(3):205–209. doi: 10.4321/S1132-12962008000300012
   Google Scholar
• Jensen D, Wallace S, Kelsay P. LATCH: a breastfeeding charting system and documentation tool. J Obstet Gynaecol Gynecologic Neonatal Nur. 1994 Jan;23(1):27–32. doi: 10.1111/j.1552-6909.1994.tb01847.x
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Corso M, Cancelliere C, Mior S, et al. The safety of spinal manipulative therapy in children under 10 years: a rapid review. Chiropr Man Therap. 2020 Dec;28(1):1–8. doi: 10.1186/s12998-020-0299-y
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ellwood J, Draper-Rodi J, Carnes D. The effectiveness and safety of conservative interventions for positional plagiocephaly and congenital muscular torticollis: a synthesis of systematic reviews and guidance. Chiropr Man Therap. 2020 Dec;28(1):1–1. doi: 10.1186/s12998-020-00321-w
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alcantara J, Alcantara JD, Alcantara J. The chiropractic care of infants with breastfeeding difficulties. Explore. 2015 Nov 1;11(6):468–474. doi: 10.1016/j.explore.2015.08.005
   Google Scholar
• Hawk C, Minkalis A, Webb C, et al. Manual interventions for musculoskeletal factors in infants with suboptimal breastfeeding: a scoping review. J Evid Based Complementary Altern Med. 2018 Dec 11;23:2515690X18816971. doi: 10.1177/2515690X18816971
   Google Scholar
• Miller JE, Miller L, Sulesund AK, et al. Contribution of chiropractic therapy to resolving suboptimal breastfeeding: a case series of 114 infants. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2009 Oct 1;32(8):670–674. doi: 10.1016/j.jmpt.2009.08.023
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fry LM. Chiropractic and breastfeeding dysfunction: a literature review. J Clin Chiropractic Pediatr. 2014 Mar;14(2):1151–1155.
   Google Scholar
• Herzhaft-Le Roy J, Xhignesse M, Gaboury I. Efficacy of an osteopathic treatment coupled with lactation consultations for infants’ biomechanical sucking difficulties: a randomized controlled trial. J Hum Lact. 2017 Feb;33(1):165–172. doi: 10.1177/0890334416679620
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Albuquerque PL, Lemos A, Guerra MQ, et al. Accuracy of the Alberta Infant motor Scale (AIMS) to detect developmental delay of gross motor skills in preterm infants: a systematic review. Dev Neurorehabil. 2015 Jan 2;18(1):15–21. doi: 10.3109/17518423.2014.955213
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Knol DL, et al. The COSMIN checklist for evaluating the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties: a clarification of its content. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2010 Dec;10(1):1–8. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-10-22
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kjølbye CB, Drivsholm TB, Ertmann RK, et al. Motor function tests for 0-2-year-old children - a systematic review. Dan Med J. 2018 Jun 1;65(6):A5484.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar