The efficacy of Adeli suit treatment in children with cerebral palsy.

seems that the only difference between the two groups should be the suit; if both groups had received the same treatment, the actual effects of the suit alone would be evident. Several questions are left unanswered and suggest future research before AST can be accepted as an effective treatment. In this study, AST seemed to work best for Gross Motor Function Classification System level II. What differences in outcomes existed within and across children at level II, III, and IV? Would ambulation be a better measure to assess energy cost than stair climbing, knowing that the level IV children have extreme difficulty with stairs? Besides NDT, there may be treatment strategies that are less costly and more accessible to compare the efficacy of AST. While NDT and AST training are costly for therapists, AST requires additional expenses for the family in travel, program costs, and time spent away from home. The results of the BarHaim et al. article report statistical significance in both treatment groups at different points in the trial, but are the statistical differences clinically important?7 Families who have children with moderate to severe disabilities are at risk of spending valuable resources on alternative therapies which have not been proven, and professionals should be cautious in encouraging families to pursue alternative techniques in the early phases of research on their efficacy. While it is important to continue research on alternative therapies, the BarHaim et al. study does not provide adequate support for the routine use of AST for children with CP.