Table 1:

Summary of the identified systematic reviews (when repeated, citations are in bold and not summarized again)

Study	Studies included	Study type	Interventions/comparisons	Results
Morgan et al.16	7 studies (n=366) Badr et al.46 (n=62); Law et al.48 (n=128); Nelson et al.81 (n=37); Ohgi et al.80 (n=23); Palmer et al.49 (n=48); Taub et al.83 (n=18); Wallen et al.47 (n=50)	RCT	Enriched intensive stimulation using CAMS vs standard care46; 6mo child vs context-focused approaches48; enrichment via multisensory stimulation+standard care vs standard care81; enrichment via training of mother–infant interaction+handling and developmental support using NDT vs standard care80; infant stimulation followed by 6mo of physical therapy vs 12mo of NDT49; CIMT (6h for 21d) vs standard physiotherapy and/or occupational therapy (mean of 2.2h/wk)83; enriched intensive modified CIMT+home program vs enriched intensive occupational therapy+home program47	No group differences46; child-focused outcomes similar to context-focused48; no group difference on Bayley at 12mo81; no group differences on motor outcomes at 6mo80; significant group differences favoring enrichment at both 6 and 12mo49; CIMT improved more in motor function and new motor patterns83; no group differences in motor outcomes47 Meta-analysis: favorable benefit from enriched environment (environmental enrichment) interventions on motor outcomes; not possible to draw conclusions about individual components of environmental enrichment GRADE quality: moderate
Hadders-Algra et al.18	3/7 new studies (n=155) Mayo87 (n=29); Weindling et al.50 (n=105); Nelson et al.81 (n=21); Badr et al.46 (n=62); Hielkema et al.86 (n=46) Blauw-Hospers et al.99 (n=46); Morgan et al.45 (n=13); Ohgi et al.80 (n=23)	RCT	Weekly vs monthly NDT87; NDT vs standard care50; COPCA vs standard physiotherapy86; GAME vs standard care45	Greater percentage change in motor development for intensive group87; no group differences50; no group differences; NDT hands-on techniques associated with worse mobility at 18mo86; GAS and COPM scores not different; PDMS scores better in the GAME group45 General conclusion: developmental stimulation may improve cognitive outcomes. No convincing evidence that NDT or developmental stimulation improves motor outcomes GRADE quality: low
Morgan et al.17	28/34 new studies (n=260); 6/12 new studies with control groups (n=151) Batra et al.40 (n=15); Campbell et al.85 (n=46); Palmer et al.100 (n=48); Park et al.84 (n=26); Shamir et al.41 (n=10); Mahoney et al.43 (n=6) No control group (n=109) Coker57 (n=1); Dickerson58 (n=1); Horn et al.59 (n=4); Kanda et al.60 (n=8); Kinghorn61 (n=1); Lowes et al.62 (n=5); Naylor et al.63 (n=9); Nordstrand et al.64 (n=31); Prosser et al.65 (n=5); Richards et al.66 (n=4); Smelt67 (n=1); Trahan et al.68 (n=5); Ustad et al.69 (n=5); Bodkin et al.70 (n=1); Bollea et al.71 (n=1); Cope et al.72 (n=1); DeLuca73 (n=1); Fergus et al.74 (n=1); Glover et al.75 (n=6); Heathcock et al.76 (n=2); Huang et al.77 (n=1); Kanda et al.78 (n=10); Yang et al.79 (n=5); Badr et al.46 (n=62); Hielkema et al.86 (n=46); Blauw-Hospers et al.99 (n=46); Morgan et al.45 (n=13); Ohgi et al.80 (n=23); Palmer et al.49 (n=48); Weindling et al.50 (n=105)	RCT; cohort with concurrent control; single subject research design; cohort; cohort with historical control; case study; case series	CAMS vs standard care40; kicking/stepping program vs standard care85; electrical stimulation+NDT vs NDT only84; intensive vs regular NDT41; developmental skills program+parent recommendations vs NDT43 No control group: CIMT57; CIMT+occupational therapy: orthoses58; developmental program59; early vs late Vojta therapy60; weight-bearing splint (upper limb)+NDT61; cast+CIMT+bimanual training62; CIMT63; baby-CIMT vs standard care64; mobility training65; treadmill training66; upper limb inhibitive cast+NDT67; NDT+occupational therapy: fine motor, perception68; physiotherapy69; physiotherapy+treadmill training57; CIMT71–75; physiotherapy motor learning76; assistive technology car77; Vojta therapy78; walking program79	No group differences40,43,85; electrical stimulation+NDT group had better kyphotic angle and GMFM-Sitting score84; intensive group improved more41 No control group: positive motor changes after modified CIMT57 and CIMT with splints58; neurobehavioral intervention improved motor skills59; early Vojta improved walking skills but had more severe complications60; fine and gross motor skills improved during CIMT and were maintained at the 1-mo follow-up62; improved hand function during and after treatment63; baby-CIMT group six times more likely to have a high functional level at 2y than the group without baby-CIMT64; greater gains in gross motor function during intervention65; no change in gait spatiotemporal parameters or GMFM total score66; gains in passive range of motion67; NDT+occupational therapy improved motor function68; effect of physiotherapy inconclusive69; treadmill training feasible for high-risk infants70; gains in upper arm function observed71–75; improved motor function, language, and cognitive skills found76; gains in mobility and vocalization during intervention77; 4 out of 5 could stand for 5s or walk at 52mo of therapy78; walking improved79 General conclusion: the two interventions with the largest effect sizes had common elements of child-initiated movement, environment modification/enrichment, and task-specific training GRADE quality: low

RCT, randomized controlled trial; CAMS, Curriculum and Monitoring System; NDT, neurodevelopmental treatment; CIMT, constraint-induced movement therapy; GRADE, Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation; COPCA, Coping with and Caring for Infants with Special Needs; GAME, Goals-Activity-Motor Enrichment; GAS, Goal Attainment Scale; COPM, Canadian Occupational Performance Measure; PDMS, Peabody Developmental Motor Scale; GMFM, Gross Motor Function Measure.