ArticleJournal of children's orthopaedics2018
Motor abilities in 182 children treated for idiopathic clubfoot: a comparison between the traditional and the Ponseti method and controls.
Article in Journal of children's orthopaedics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effectiveness of a digital-based gradual exercise training program for preventing relapse in congenital clubfoot: a protocol for a randomized controlled clinical trial.BMC pediatrics · 2025Article
- The Impact of Living with Clubfoot on Children and Their Families: Perspectives from Two Cultural Environments.Indian journal of orthopaedics · 2022Article
- This is a narrative review of the functional evaluation of clubfoot treatment with gait analysis.Annals of translational medicine · 2021Review
- Does the Presence of Clubfoot delay the Onset of Walking?Revista brasileira de ortopedia · 2020Article
- Does idiopathic congenital talipes equinovarus have an impact on attainment of developmental milestones? A multicentre international study.Journal of children's orthopaedics · 2019Article
- Additional challenges in children with idiopathic clubfoot: is it just the foot?Journal of children's orthopaedics · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe aim of the study was to examine motor abilities in children treated for idiopathic clubfoot with either the traditional extensive surgery method or the Ponseti method, and compare their motor skills with a control group without clubfoot.
methodsA total of 89 children treated according to the traditional method (mean age 9.0 years, 7 to 10) and 93 treated ad modum Ponseti (mean age 8.8 years, 7 to 10) were recruited from a multicentre clinical study in Norway. A total of 45 age-matched children without clubfoot were recruited from a nearby school. They were all assessed with the Movement Assessment Battery for Children - Second Edition (MABC-2), which evaluates motor performance. We applied Analysis of Covariance for comparison of the two treatment methods and adjusted for gender, laterality, comorbidity, achillotomy or more extended surgery, physiotherapy and the age when the child walked independently.
resultsWe found no significant difference in any of the various components or the total score of the MABC-2 between patients treated with the two different methods. In all, 76% of the children treated according to the traditional method and ad modum Ponseti, and 96% in the control group, respectively, were classified as having normal motor abilities.
conclusionAbout three-quarters of children aged nine years and treated for idiopathic clubfoot had normal motor abilities. We found similar results in patients treated with the traditional method and the Ponseti method. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II.
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.