ArticleJournal of children's orthopaedics2019
Standing and walking age in children with idiopathic clubfoot: French physiotherapy
Article in Journal of children's orthopaedics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeA mild delay in gross motor milestones and walking age has been reported in infants with clubfoot. The influence of different treatments on motor development has been poorly investigated. Some parents and physical therapists express concern that the Ponseti method (PM) and its constraints (abduction brace, casts) would affect development more than the French physical therapy method (FM) due to greater immobilization and lesser stimulation.The purpose of this study was to evaluate achievement of three motor milestones (pull-to-standing, cruising and independent walking) in two groups of clubfoot patients treated at two experienced institutes respectively with the PM and FM.
methodsIn all, 52 consecutive infants (full-term at birth, mean age at beginning of treatment 24.3 days (sd 10), mean Dimeglio score 12 (sd 3.4)) were prospectively enrolled (26 patients per centre) and followed up to walking age recording milestones.
resultsThe two groups were not different in terms of age at the beginning of treatment (p = 0.067) and rate of tenotomy. Age at tenotomy was significantly lower in the PM group (p = 0.000). Severity (p = 0.004) and number of bilateral cases (p = 0.012) were higher in the PM group. A non-significant difference was found for age of achievement of pull-to-standing (p = 0.109), cruising (p = 0.253) and independent ambulation (p = 0.349) between the two groups. Overall, milestones were achieved approximately two months later than normal population. Sex, severity, laterality and need of tenotomy were not found to significantly influence milestones.
conclusionOur results confirmed that infants with clubfoot are expected to have a minimum delay in motor development. Infants treated with the PM and those treated with the FM did not show significant differences in gross motor milestones achievement at walking age. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II - Prospective comparative therapeutic studies.
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.