A scoping review maps neurodevelopmental factors and treatment protocols for spasticity in pediatric cerebral palsy, highlighting critical methodological gaps.
Background: Spasticity, affecting over 80% of children with cerebral palsy (CP), is a major source of disability. Transcranial photobiomodulation (tPBM) is a promising non-invasive neuromodulatory intervention, but evidence for its use in pediatric CP spasticity is fragmented and limited. Objective: This scoping review aimed to systematically map the literature to characterize neurodevelopmental considerations, treatment protocols, functional outcomes, and methodological gaps related to tPBM for spasticity in pediatric CP. Methods: The review followed the PRISMA extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR). A systematic search was performed across eight databases from January 2000 to September 2025. The PCC framework guided inclusion of studies involving children/adolescents (0–18 years) with CP and spasticity, investigating PBM with a primary focus on transcranial application. Results: From 345 records, only five primary studies (total n = 45 children) met the inclusion criteria. The evidence base is severely limited and heterogeneous, with only two of the five studies applying tPBM. A profound lack of protocol standardization was identified, with frequent reports that are internally inconsistent or contain physically implausible dosimetry reporting. Methodological quality was pre-preliminary, with no sham-controlled or adequately blinded trials. Although all studies reported reductions in spasticity and/or motor improvements, the high risk of bias prevents attribution of the effects to tPBM. Conclusions: The evidence supporting tPBM for spasticity in pediatric CP is in a pre-preliminary stage, defined by a critically small number of studies, a pervasive lack of methodological rigor, and an absence of pediatric-specific safety protocols. The field requires an immediate pivot to foundational, sham-controlled, double-blind trials with standardized dosimetry before tPBM can be considered anything other than an unproven experimental intervention.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Jiménez et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: