ArticleJournal of foot and ankle research2019
Evaluation of a simple tool to assess the results of Ponseti treatment for use by clubfoot therapists: a diagnostic accuracy study.
Article in Journal of foot and ankle research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Treatment outcome of the Ponseti method for clubfoot in Africa : a systematic review and meta-analysis.Bone & joint open · 2026Pooled it
- Patient-reported outcome using EFAS score in skeletally mature clubfoot patients treated at birth with Ponseti's technique.Journal of children's orthopaedics · 2026Article
- Global clubfoot treatment in 2023: an overview of advances and outcomes.BMJ global health · 2025Observational
- Assessing the Influence of Age, Weight, and Pirani Score on the Number of Casts During the Initial Phase of Clubfoot Treatment Using the Ponseti Method: A Prospective Study.Indian journal of orthopaedics · 2024Article
- Exploring Bracing Adherence in Ponseti Treatment of Clubfoot: A Comparative Study of Factors and Outcomes in Uganda.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023Article
- EVALUATION OF EARLY TREATMENT OF IDIOPATHIC CLUBFOOT USING THE PONSETI METHOD.Acta ortopedica brasileira · 2023Article
- A systematic review of reported outcomes following Ponseti correction of idiopathic club foot.Bone & joint open · 2020Article
- Remote monitoring of clubfoot treatment with digital photographs in low resource settings: Is it accurate?PloS one · 2020Article
- Design and evaluation of a unilateral brace for preventing clubfoot relapse: A prospective study.Journal of rehabilitation and assistive technologies engineeringArticle
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 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWe aimed to develop and evaluate a tool for clubfoot therapists in low resource settings to assess the results of Ponseti treatment of congenital talipes equinovarus, or clubfoot, in children of walking age.
methodA literature review and a Delphi process based on the opinions of 35 Ponseti trainers in Africa were used to develop the Assessing Clubfoot Treatment (ACT) tool and score. We followed up children with clubfoot from a cohort treated between 2011 and 2013, in 2017. A full clinical assessment was conducted to decide if treatment was successful or if further treatment was required. The ACT score was then calculated for each child. Inter-observer variation for the ACT tool was assessed. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values were calculated for the ACT score compared to full clinical assessment (gold standard). Predictors of a successful outcome were explored.
resultsThe follow up rate was 31.2% (68 children). The ACT tool consisted of 4 questions; each scored from 0 to 3, giving a total from 0 to 12 where 12 is the ideal result. The 4 questions included one physical assessment and three parent reported outcome measures. It took 5 min to administer and had excellent inter-observer agreement.An ACT score of 8 or less demonstrated 79% sensitivity and 100% specificity in identifying children that required further intervention, with a positive predictive value of 100% and negative predictive value of 90%. Children who completed two or more years of bracing were four times more likely to achieve an ACT score of 9 or more compared to those who did not (OR: 4.08, 95% CI: 1.31-12.65,
conclusionsThe ACT tool is simple to administer, had excellent observer agreement, and good sensitivity and specificity in identifying children who need further intervention. The score can be used to identify those children who definitely need referral and further treatment (score 8 or less) and those with a definite successful outcome (score 11 or more), however further discrimination is needed to decide how to manage children with a borderline ACT score of 9 or 10. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, Diagnostic Study.
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.