An open-access meta-analysis on pediatric occupational therapy

Clinic owners often hear that occupational therapy “works”. An open meta-analysis is useful when it says for whom, on which measure, and with which limit. We keep those three points so a team conversation starts from the paper rather than from a social caption.

The paper is not about every child booked into a speech or occupational therapy centre. It is about children with cerebral palsy and occupational-therapy interventions. That limit needs to stay visible.

It was published in the Journal of Clinical Medicine on 27 October 2025. It is a systematic review with meta-analysis, free to read under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) licence. The protocol was registered in PROSPERO on 17 January 2025 as CRD42025634706.

The search covered seven databases through August 2025. It kept randomised trials published from January 2024 through August 2025, in children aged 1 to 12 years with cerebral palsy. The intervention had to be occupational therapy and last at least four weeks. Of 594 records, 14 studies met the criteria.

The authors report a gain in gross motor function on the GMFM-66, effect size 0.32, confidence interval 0.01 to 0.63. PEDI mobility was 0.46 (0.05 to 0.87). COPM performance was 2.63 (1.14 to 4.11) and COPM satisfaction was 2.17 (0.82 to 3.51).

PEDI self-care was not statistically significant: effect size 0.19, interval −0.14 to 0.53. That limit belongs in the conversation. Gross motor skill, mobility, and COPM goal performance are not the same claim as self-care on this scale in these trials.

The children in the studies had cerebral palsy and were aged 1 to 12. A speech-therapy group, a sensory programme, or a child referred for another reason does not inherit these effect sizes.

The trials sit in a narrow publication window, 2024 through August 2025, and only randomised designs were included. Older literature and the centre’s own practice are not cancelled. They are simply not this paper.

The paper does not measure software, reception, or how full the schedule is. It is clinical literature. The therapy team reads it from the original, including the limits the authors state.

Calendo Health is software for a therapy clinic’s schedule and coordination. It does not promise a motor or functional outcome and it does not replace occupational therapy.

If the team wants the full text for internal teaching, the link is PubMed Central. This page does not replace the tables, the exclusion rules, or the discussion of limitations.