ReviewDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2021
Prenatal Diagnosis of Clubfoot: Where Are We Now? Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Unraveling the Clinical and Genetic Landscape of Talipes Equinovarus (Clubfoot).Molecular syndromology · 2026Review
- Can Prenatal Ultrasound and Genetic Testing Reliably Exclude Non-Isolated Clubfoot?Prenatal diagnosis · 2026Article
- Genetics, epidemiology and management of clubfoot and related disorders.Genes & diseases · 2025Review
- An Observational Study on Pre-natal Diagnosis of Congenital Talipes Equinovarus.Journal of orthopaedic case reports · 2025Article
- Article
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
The primary methods for prenatal diagnosis of Clubfoot are ultrasound (US) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). An ultrasound is performed between the 1st trimester and the 28th week of pregnancy and it is reported to be used as a diagnostic method alone or in combination with MRI. So far, an international consensus on the most effective screening method has not been reached. This systematic review and meta-analysis were performed to establish the most effective and reliable exam for prenatal diagnosis of Clubfoot. The literature search was conducted using a PIOS-approach from May 2021 to June 2021. Studies reporting cases of prenatal diagnosis of Clubfoot made through US and MRI conducted from January 2010 to June 2021 were included in the study and reviewed by 2 authors. The 23 selected studies included 2318 patients. A total of 11 of the studies included details on the accuracy, while the rest were used to obtain information about the primary methodology utilized. In all the selected studies, US was used as the primary diagnostic instrument. Thirteen of the studies used the US exclusively, while three used MRI in addition to US and seven performed karyotyping after US diagnosis. The US has been shown to be the instrument of choice for the prenatal diagnosis of Clubfoot. International guidelines for an ultrasonography classification of congenital clubfoot are required to reduce the inter-variability accuracy of this procedure.
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.