Effects of Conductive Education Intervention for Children with a Diagnosis of Cerebral Palsy: An AACPDM Evidence Report Initial Publication in Database: February, 2003 Updated: Other Published Versions of this Evidence Report: Written by Johanna Darrah, PhD, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada Beth Watkins, PT, Glenrose Rehabilitation Hospital, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada Lucia Chen, PT, Glenrose Rehabilitation Hospital, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada Cindy Bonin, PT, Glenrose Rehabilitation Hospital, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada Approved by AACPDM Treatment Outcomes Committee Review Panel: American Academy for Cerebral Palsy and Developmental Medicine, 6300 North River Road, Suite 727, Rosemont, IL 60068-4226, USA Richard Adams, MD Mark Abel, MD Ngaire Susan Stott, MD Henry Chambers, MD Diane Damiano, PhD Johanna Darrah, PhD Geoffrey Miller, MD Michael Msall, MD Charlene Butler, EdD Kevin Murphy, MD Gregory Liptak, MD Lori Roxborough, MSC Maureen O’Donnell, MD Lisa Samson-Fang, MD *Correspondence to first author at 2-50 Corbett Hall, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB T6G 2G4, Canada. Email address: Johanna.Darrah@ualberta.ca Objective The objective of the American Academy for Cerebral Palsy and Developmental Medicine (AACPDM) evidence reports is to provide the biomedical research and clinical practice communities with the current state of evidence about various interventions for the management of developmental disabilities. AACPDM evidence reports aggregate all that has been published about outcomes of an intervention for a medical condition, gauge the credibility (i.e. strength of the internal validity) of that evidence, and identify gaps in our scientific knowledge. The AACPDM reviews are not evidence-based ‘practice guidelines’. As yet, the bodies of evidence in many areas of developmental medicine are neither robust nor comprehensive enough to allow confident generalization to populations-at-large, a prerequisite for evidence- based guidelines. Moreover, absence of evidence of effectiveness in an evidence report should not be construed as proof that a treatment is not effective; rather, it may reflect areas in which more meaningful research is needed. In the meanwhile, clinicians must be circumspect about their treatment recommendations, relying on current ‘best evidence’ to inform individual choice. a a ‘Best evidence’ is represented by the study (or studies) in the evidence report that most closely approximates the patient characteristics that are of interest to the clinician, that uses a therapeutic regime most like the one the clinician can provide, that investigates outcomes of greatest concern to the patient, and that provides the most credible or internally valid results.