Golda Milo-Manson

University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Are you Golda Milo-Manson?

Claim your profile

Publications (2)7.02 Total impact

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The aim of this systematic review was to inform evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for children with cerebral palsy (CP) and low bone mineral density (BMD). A computer-assisted literature search was focused on low BMD in children with CP, and was limited to the following interventions: weight-bearing activities, bisphosphonate use, and vitamin D or calcium supplementation. Articles were classified according to American Academy of Neurology guidelines and recommendation classifications were given based on the evidence for the intervention increasing BMD and decreasing fragility fractures. Studies were included if they were English-language full-text studies, focused on children with CP, and included at least 10 participants receiving the studied interventions. Twenty-one articles underwent full-text review and data abstraction, including seven studies of weight-bearing activities, five studies of vitamin D or calcium supplementation, and nine studies of bisphosphonates administration. Overall, the evidence that bisphosphonates administration increases BMD was assessed as level B (probable) while the evidence that vitamin D or calcium supplementation does so was assessed as level C (possible); there was insufficient evidence to suggest that weight-bearing activities are an effective intervention to improve BMD. The evidence that bisphosphonates help to prevent fragility fractures was assessed as level C (possible); there was inadequate evidence to support the use of weight-bearing activities or vitamin D or calcium supplementation to decrease fragility fractures. Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines were created outlining the suggested role of weight-bearing activities, vitamin D and calcium supplementation, and bisphosphonate use for children with CP with low BMD at risk of fragility fractures.
    Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology 11/2011; 54(2):106-16. DOI:10.1111/j.1469-8749.2011.04091.x · 3.51 Impact Factor
  • Source
    Anne M Murphy · Golda Milo-Manson · Adrienne Best · Kent A Campbell · Darcy Fehlings ·
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This randomized double blind AB/BA cross-over trial evaluates the effect of oral modafinil versus placebo on spasticity, function, and quality of life in children with cerebral palsy (CP). Outcomes were measured at the start and end of both 8-week treatment periods (modafinil and placebo). The order of the treatment periods was randomly assigned. There was a 4-week wash-out period between treatments. Primary outcomes include the Modified Ashworth Score (MAS), and the Caregiver Priorities and Child Health Index of Life with Disabilities (CPCHILD), a disorder-specific quality of life measure. Ten children were randomized and eight children completed the study. The mean age of participants was 11 years 5 months (SD 1 y 5 mo, range 8 y 8 mo-12 y 11 mo). Five of the participants were male and three female. Seven children had a diagnosis of spastic quadriplegic CP and one child had spastic diplegia with overflow tone to the upper extremities. The Gross Motor Function Classification System ranged from Level III to V with one child at Level III, six children at Level IV, and one at Level V. The CPCHILD pre- to post-total scores showed a slight improvement in quality of life during the placebo period and a slight deterioration in the modafinil period (overall mean change of 7.1, SD 7.6). A t-test between post differences was statistically significant (t=2.65, p=0.03) in favor of the placebo period. The MAS for elbow flexors, ankle flexors, and hip adductors did not show any significant reduction post-modafinil or post-placebo (p values ranged from 0.41-0.79). This study did not find evidence that modafinil reduces spasticity or has a positive impact on quality of life in children with spastic CP.
    Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology 08/2008; 50(7):510-4. DOI:10.1111/j.1469-8749.2008.03019.x · 3.51 Impact Factor