3.2.1. Gross motor function measure
Four studies evaluated gross motor function according to GMFM-66 (Wang et al., 2008; Duncan et al., 2012; Liu et al., 2013; Li J. et al., 2021). One study provided average GMFM-66 scores without standard deviation, which was excluded from the meta-analysis (Duncan et al., 2012). The pooled analysis reported a significantly better improvement in GMFM-66 in intervention groups than in control groups (WMD 9.33; 95% CI 0.14–18.52, P = 0.047, I2 = 92.1%) (Figure 2A). When Liu et al. (2013) was excluded from the pooled results according to the sensitivity analysis, there were still significant differences between the two groups without significant heterogeneity (WMD 3.30; 95% CI 1.62–4.97, P < 0.001, I2 = 47.4%).
How were the data analyzed?