Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32413066›Full record

ArticlePloS one2020

Remote monitoring of clubfoot treatment with digital photographs in low resource settings: Is it accurate?

Tracey Smythe, Marie-Caroline Nogaro, Laura J Clifton, Debra Mudariki, Tim Theologis, Chris Lavy

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. 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

6 authors.

Tracey SmytheLondon School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-3408-7362
Marie-Caroline NogaroPaediatric Orthopaedic Surgery, Nuffield Orthopaedic Centre, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Trust, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Laura J CliftonSouth Tees Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, James Cook University Hospital, Middlesbrough, United Kingdom.
Debra MudarikiPhysiotherapy Department, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa.
Tim TheologisPaediatric Orthopaedic Surgery, Nuffield Orthopaedic Centre, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Trust, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Chris LavyNuffield Department of Orthopaedics Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Science, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundClinical examination and functional assessment are often the first steps to assess outcome of clubfoot treatment. Clinical photographs may be an adjunct used to assess treatment outcomes in lower resourced settings where physical review by a specialist is limited. We aimed to evaluate the diagnostic performance of photographic images of patients with clubfoot in assessing outcome following treatment.

methodsIn this single-centre diagnostic accuracy study, we included all children with clubfoot from a cohort treated between 2011 and 2013, in 2017. Two physiotherapists trained in clubfoot management calculated the Assessing Clubfoot Treatment (ACT) score for each child to decide if treatment was successful or if further treatment was required. Photographic images were then taken of 79 feet. Two blinded orthopaedic surgeons assessed three sets of images of each foot (n = 237 in total) at two time points (two months apart). Treatment for each foot was rated as 'success', 'borderline' or 'failure'. Intra- and inter-observer variation for the photographic image was assessed. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values were calculated for the photographic image compared to the ACT score.

resultsThere was perfect correlation between clinical assessment and photographic evaluation of both raters at both time-points in 38 (48%) feet. The raters demonstrated acceptable reliability with re-scoring photographs (rater 1, k = 0.55; rater 2, k = 0.88). Thirty percent (n = 71) of photographs were assessed as poor quality image or sub-optimal patient position. Sensitivity of outcome with photograph compared to ACT score was 83.3%-88.3% and specificity ranged from 57.9%-73.3%.

conclusionDigital photography may help to confirm, but not exclude, success of clubfoot treatment. Future work to establish photographic parameters as an adjunct to assessing treatment outcomes, and guidance on a standardised protocol for photographs, may be beneficial in the follow up of children who have treated clubfoot in isolated communities or lower resourced settings.

Indexed as

PhotographyTelemedicineChildClubfootCohort StudiesFemaleHumansMaleObserver VariationOrthopedic ProceduresPhysical TherapistsReproducibility of ResultsSensitivity and SpecificityTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID32413066
PMCPMC7228114

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.