Uncertainties Regarding Cerebral Palsy Diagnosis: Opportunities to Clarify the Consensus Definition

Abstract

Background and objectives: We have established that physicians, including neurologists, variably diagnose cerebral palsy (CP) when using the most recent CP definition from 2006. We also know that child neurologists and neurodevelopmentalists view themselves to be optimally suited to diagnose CP based on their training backgrounds. Therefore, to reduce variability in CP diagnosis, our objective was to elucidate uncertainties child neurologists and neurodevelopmentalists may have regarding practical application of the 2006 definition.

Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional survey of child neurologists and neurodevelopmentalists built into a discussion seminar at the 2022 Child Neurology Society (CNS) Annual Meeting, the largest professional meeting of these specialists in North America. Seminar attendees were provided the 2006 definition and asked whether they had any uncertainties about the practical application of the definition across 4 hypothetical clinical vignettes. A group of national and international CP leaders then processed these data through iterative discussions to develop recommendations for clarifying the 2006 definition.

Results: The seminar was attended by 50% of all conference attendees claiming CME (202/401). Of the 164 closing survey respondents, 145 (88%) expressed uncertainty regarding the clinical application of the 2006 definition. These uncertainties focused on 1) age, both regarding the minimum and maximum ages of brain disturbance or motor symptom onset (67/164, 41%), and 2) interpretation of the term "nonprogressive" (48/164, 29%). Almost all respondents (157/164, 96%) felt that we should revise the 2006 consensus definition of CP.

Discussion: To address the most common CP diagnostic uncertainties we identified, we collectively propose 4 points of clarification to the 2006 definition: 1) motor symptoms/signs should be present by 2 years old; 2) CP can and should be diagnosed as early as possible; 3) the clinical motor disability phenotype should be nonprogressive through 5 years old; and 4) a CP diagnosis should be re-evaluated if motor disability is progressive or absent by 5 years old. We anticipate that clarifying the 2006 definition of CP in this manner could address the uncertainties we identified among child neurologists and neurodevelopmentalists and reduce the diagnostic variability that currently exists.