Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30867682›Full record

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.

Tracey Smythe, Debra Mudariki, Maxman Gova, Allen Foster, Christopher Lavy

Open access · goldAbstract readConsensus StatementEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 25% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

Tracey Smythe1International Centre for Evidence in Disability, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, Keppel Street, London, WC1E7HT UK.ORCID 0000-0003-3408-7362
Debra Mudariki2University of Witwatersrand, 1 Jan Smuts Avenue, Braamfontein, Johannesburg, 2000 South Africa.
Maxman Gova3Department of Surgery, Parirenyatwa Hospital & University of Zimbabwe, Harare, Zimbabwe.
Allen Foster1International Centre for Evidence in Disability, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, Keppel Street, London, WC1E7HT UK.
Christopher Lavy4Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Science, University of Oxford, Windmill Road, Headington, Oxford, OX3 7HE UK.
University of London · GBNuffield Orthopaedic Centre · GBUniversity of the Witwatersrand · ZAUniversity of Zimbabwe · ZW

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Casts, SurgicalChild, PreschoolClubfootDelphi TechniqueHumansManipulation, OrthopedicMedically Underserved AreaObserver VariationPatient Reported Outcome MeasuresPhysical ExaminationPredictive Value of TestsSensitivity and SpecificityTreatment OutcomeClubfootCongenital talipes equinovarusDiagnostic studyLow income settingMeasurePonsetiSuccess

Identifiers

PMID30867682
PMCPMC6399889
OpenAlexW2918899918

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.