Observational studyMedicine2015
Kite versus Ponseti Method in the Treatment of 235 Feet With Idiopathic Clubfoot: Results of a Single Romanian Medical Center.
Observational study in Medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Interventions for congenital talipes equinovarus (clubfoot).The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2020Pooled it
- Comparison of different conservative treatments for idiopathic clubfoot: Ponseti's versus non-Ponseti's methods.The Journal of international medical research · 2017Pooled it
- A polyaxial fixation brace for the treatment of idiopathic congenital talipes equinovarus in newborns.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2019Trial
- Kite Versus Ponseti Method in the Treatment of Idiopathic Congenital Clubfoot: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Cureus · 2024Review
- Contemporary challenges in clubfoot treatment: A quantitative study among Indian parents.Journal of orthopaedics · 2023Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Congenital idiopathic clubfoot (CC) represents the fifth common most congenital malformation which may be treated conservatively or by surgery. In this article, we present the results obtained in our clinic after conservative therapy performed with 2 methods.A total of 235 consecutive feet (161 patients) were conservatively treated using Kite (n = 129) and Ponseti method (n = 106). The Dimeglio score was determined before and at 6 months after treatment to compare the 2 methods. All of the patients were treated in their first week of life.CC was more frequently diagnosed in males (n = 93; 57.76%), bilaterality being seen in 45.96% of the patients (n = 74). Although before therapy the Dimeglio score was similar in both groups (P = 0.85), it was significantly improved in patients treated by Ponseti method (P = 0.005). Duration of therapy was also longer in patients from Kite versus Ponseti group (20 vs 11 weeks). Failure of orthopedic treatment was more frequent in Kite group (30.32% vs 8.49% of the patients) and the relapses rate at 6 months was also higher (35.65% vs 11.32%).The conservative method used to treat the CC should be adapted on the patient's age and Ponseti method seems to be the most effective type of treatment used for patients treated in their first week of life. Dimeglio score can be successfully used for evaluation of these children. This is the eighth published study that compare the efficacy of Kite versus Ponseti method.
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.