Trial reportClinics in orthopedic surgery2020
Results of a Standard versus an Accelerated Ponseti Protocol for Clubfoot: A Prospective Randomized Study.
Trial report in Clinics in orthopedic surgery, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effectiveness of the Ponseti Method in the Treatment of Clubfoot: A Systematic Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023Pooled it
- Design improvements and clinical evaluation of an adjustable clubfoot splint.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Easy Cast Removal in Idiopathic Congenital Talipes Equinovarus: A Study on Modified Ponseti Technique using an Interposed Polythene Sheet.Journal of orthopaedic case reports · 2025Article
- Article
- Review
- Review
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe aim of this study was to compare the results of the standard once-weekly Ponseti casting technique to an accelerated twice-weekly regimen in our population cohort.
methodsA prospective randomized controlled study was conducted with a total of 100 consecutive patients (158 feet) being enrolled for the study. Fifty patients were randomized to each group and followed up for at least one year.
resultsInitial mean Pirani score was 4.67 ± 0.73 in the standard group and 4.35 ± 0.76 in the accelerated group, and the score decreased to 0.34 ± 0.38 and 0.35 ± 0.31, respectively. Initial mean Dimeglio score was 11.75 ± 2.75 in the standard group and 10.51 ± 2.57 in the accelerated group, and the score decreased to 0.79 ± 0.77 and 0.79 ± 0.71, respectively, immediately after casting. The average number of casts required to correct all the deformities was 6.3 ± 1.2 in the standard group and 6.1 ± 1.4 in the accelerated group (
conclusionsThese results suggest that the accelerated Ponseti technique significantly reduces the correction time without affecting the final results and that it is as safe and effective as the traditional Ponseti technique.
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.