Table 2: Study characteristics and study results.

(age, range in years)
Sample sizeDesign/time-intervals
(weeks after )
Experimental treatment
Control treatment
Outcome domains
ResultsAuthors conclusions

van Brussel et al.,
(2008) [73]

(E: 16/C: 17)
: 12
: 24
: 36
Physical training
Usual care
(i) Physical fitness
(ii) Fatigue
(iii) Perceived competence
(iv) HRqOL
Improvements were found on all outcomes in favor of E at . At and scores deterioratedSupervised program improves physical fitness and reduces fatigue safely and effectively

Mintz-Itkin et al.,
(2009) [61]

(E: 15/C: 14)
: 36
: 48
: 60
: 72
Monthly, Bobath treatment
Weekly, Bobath treatment
(i) Gross motor development
(ii) Achievement motor mile-stones
Motor catch-up was achieved in both groups, (no significant between-group difference)Monthly physical therapy combined with home exercises is sufficient to achieve motor catch-up

Kemp et al.,
(2009) [59]

(E: 30/C: 27)
: 6
: 12
Enhancing joint control of symptomatic joints
Physical training
(i) Physical fitness
(ii) Pain scores
(iii) Disability
Both groups improved in perceived pain and functional ability, (no between-group difference)Both interventions demonstrated significant pain reduction, (no between-groups difference)

OI: Osteogenesis Imperfecta, GJH: generalized joint hypermobility, JHS: joint hypermobility syndrome, EDSIII: Ehlers-Danlos hypermobile type, E: experimental group, C: control group, RCT: randomized clinical trial, w: weeks of treatment, f: frequency per week, i: intensity in minutes per session, ICF-CY: International Classification of Functioning for Child and Youth.