ArticleArchives of disease in childhood2003
Efficiency of alternative policy options for screening for developmental dysplasia of the hip in the United Kingdom.
Article in Archives of disease in childhood, 2003. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 35 citations in OpenAlex.
- Benefits and harms of antenatal and newborn screening programmes in health economic assessments: the VALENTIA systematic review and qualitative investigation.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2024Pooled it
- Routine ultrasound screening for hip dysplasia in children with clubfoot is not supported.International orthopaedics · 2024Article
- Acetabular index as an indicator of Pavlik harness success in grade I developmental dysplasia of the hip: A retrospective study.Journal of children's orthopaedics · 2023Article
- Developmental dysplasia of the hip screening programme in Chile.Journal of children's orthopaedics · 2021Article
- Cost Analysis of Screening Programmes for Developmental Dysplasia of the Hip: A Systematic Review.Indian journal of orthopaedics · 2020Review
- Prevalence of developmental dysplasia of the hip in children with clubfoot.Journal of children's orthopaedics · 2013Article
- Ultrasonography in developmental dysplasia of the hip: what have we learned?Pediatric radiology · 2012Review
- [Hip ultrasound screening in Germany. Results and comparison with other screening procedures].Der Orthopade · 2008Article
- Ultrasound in the diagnosis of developmental dysplasia of the hip in newborns. The European approach. A review of methods, accuracy and clinical validity.European radiology · 2007Review
- Performance, treatment pathways, and effects of alternative policy options for screening for developmental dysplasia of the hip in the United Kingdom.Archives of disease in childhood · 2003Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsTo assess, using a decision model, the efficiency of ultrasound based and clinical screening strategies for developmental dysplasia of the hip.
methodsThe additional cost per additional favourable outcome was compared for the following strategies: clinical screening alone using the Ortolani and Barlow tests; addition of static and dynamic ultrasound examination of the hips of all infants (universal ultrasound) or restricted to infants with defined risk factors (selective ultrasound); "no screening" (that is, clinical diagnosis only).
resultsUltrasound based screening strategies are predicted to be more effective but more costly than clinical screening or no screening. Estimated total costs per 100,000 live births are approximately pound 4 million for universal ultrasound, pound 3 million for selective ultrasound, pound 1 million for clinical screening alone, and pound 0.4 million for no screening. The relative efficiency of selective ultrasound and clinical screening is poorly differentiated, and depends on how infants are selected for ultrasound as well as the expertise of clinical screening examiners. If training costs less than pound 20 per child screened, clinical screening alone would be more efficient than selective ultrasound. Relative to no screening, each of the 16 additional favourable outcomes achieved as a result of selective ultrasound costs approximately pound 0.2 million, while each of the five favourable outcomes achieved through universal ultrasound screening, over and above selective ultrasound, costs approximately pound 0.3 million.
conclusionsPolicy choice depends on values attached to the different outcomes, willingness to pay to achieve these and total budget.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.