Resumo

After nine years of the ICF publication, is important to investigate the ICF use in international publications concerning clinical conditions that present functionality impact, like cerebral palsy. Concerning this issue, some questions can be addressed relating the scientific literature on the ICF in cases of CP 1) What is the impact of these studies? 2) Which instruments were used in these studies? 3) Are there a growing number of publications concerning CP and ICF? 4) What is the proportional use of the ICF in CP considering the total number of publications on CP from May 2001 to May 2010? The answer to these questions may construct the profile of publications related to ICF use in CP cases, contributing to an evidence-based practice according to the WHO biopsychosocial perspective. Objective: To evaluate the scientific literature on the use of ICF in CP cases, since the ICF publication, investigating the impact of these studies. Methods: Pubmed/Medline database was consulted in May 2010. The key-terms used for the search were "cerebral palsy" AND "International Classification of Functioning Disability and Health." Limits activated: a) publications in English, b) the search field: title and abstract, c) articles published between the years of May 22, 2001 to May 22, 2010, d) empirical studies developed with CP patients. Literature reviews were excluded. Results: We found 37 studies with the terms used, but 21 did not fulfill the inclusion criterion. Thus, we analyzed 16 studies. We identified in these studies 24 instruments, tests, or qualitative methods for data collection. The designs found were: cross-sectional study, longitudinal case report, descriptive multi-case study, prospective follow-up study and a quasi-experimental study. The study that revealed the greatest impact was the Beckgung & Hagberg (2002) one, which resulted 214 citations. The most common instruments found were the GMFCS (10 studies) and the GMFM (04 studies). The growth of publications during 2001 to 2010 is exponential (b = 2.14 and R ² = 0.86). Considering all types of studies in English that mentioned the use of ICF for CP cases in title/abstract (N=31) and all studies published about CP (N=4735) from 2001 to 2010, the ICF proportional use is 0.65%. Conclusions: Despite the exponential growth of the ICF studies on CP, this classification is not widely used when considering the total number of publications about the disease. Several instruments were used and they do not have any coverage of the biopsychosocial approach. Studies are needed to develop instruments based on the model proposed by WHO to increase the use of ICF in clinical neuroscience practice and scientific publications.