ReviewDer Orthopade2016
[Pediatric clubfoot : Treatment of recurrence].
Review in Der Orthopade, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Association of Polymorphism in Locus of rs274503 (Genetic testing and molecular biomarkers · 2024Article
- Treatment of talipes equinovarus after triceps surae intramuscular hemangioma surgery by Ilizarov technology in adults: A case report.World journal of clinical cases · 2023Article
- Radiological tarsal bone morphology in adolescent age of congenital clubfeet treated with the Ponseti method.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2021Article
- Indicators to assess the functionality of clubfoot clinics in low-resource settings: a Delphi consensus approach and pilot study.International health · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Over the last 10 years the Ponseti method has become established as the gold standard for initial treatment of clubfeet nearly worldwide. Nevertheless, there are considerable fluctuations regarding the authenticity and quality in the application of the Ponseti method. Especially the efforts to ensure and promote compliance with the foot abduction brace and subsequently the recurrence rate show great variation. As a result, we are still faced with a significant number of recurrent or residual clubfeet. In recent years it has been shown in high-volume clinics that even these can almost always be successfully treated with recasting and with minor interventions, such as anterior tibial tendon transfer and lengthening of the Achilles tendon. More invasive surgical procedures are only very rarely indicated and are reserved for severe recurrence in previously surgically treated and secondary clubfeet.
Indexed as
Identifiers
27577568What 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.