ArticleIrish journal of medical science2021
A normal screening ultrasound does not provide complete reassurance in infants at risk of hip dysplasia; further follow-up is required.
Article in Irish journal of medical science, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Screening of Developmental Dysplasia of the Hip in Europe: A Systematic Review.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Developmental dysplasia of the hip in infants referred for a combined pediatric orthopedic and radiologic examination. A prospective cohort study.Journal of orthopaedicsArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundScreening for developmental hip dysplasia (DDH) continues to evolve with the use of ultrasound (US) in either selective or universal screening methods. The possibility of delayed evidence of DDH, and thus the need for radiographic follow-up at a later stage of development have been suggested by some authors.
aimsThe aim of this review was to evaluate the number of patients in our hospital network with a normal screening US at 6 weeks with evidence of DDH at the time of radiographic review at 6 months. Secondary aim; to determine the outcomes for these patients.
methodsA retrospective review was done to infants undergoing DDH ultrasound screening between January and December 2015. Initial US and radiographs at 6 months were reviewed. Patients with normal screening US who had subsequent radiographs were included for analysis.
resultsIn total, there were 829 patients included for analysis. Sixty-three patients (8%) had evidence of DDH at 6 months, representing 34% of all DDH diagnoses for the study period. Five of the 63 patients were lost to follow-up. The remaining 58 babies were treated in Boston bracing. Four patients with evidence of persistent DDH were referred for tertiary review. The osteotomy rate in the radiograph diagnosed group was 2%, versus 6% and 3% in the unstable and US diagnosed groups, respectively.
conclusionEight percent of patients with a normal screening US had evidence of DDH at time of radiograph at 6 months, reflecting 34% of all our DDH cases for the year. Based on these findings, patients in our hospital network undergo radiographic evaluation at 6 months even if the initial screening US is normal.
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.