ReviewChildren (Basel, Switzerland)2022
Recurrence of Equinus Foot in Cerebral Palsy following Its Correction-A Meta-Analysis.
Review in Children (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Outcomes of Pediatric Orthopedic Management of Ambulatory Cerebral Palsy Utilizing a Closely Monitored, Lifespan-Guided Approach.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Development of ankle and knee range of motion after isolated gastrocsoleus lengthening in children with cerebral palsy: a register-based longitudinal cohort study.Acta orthopaedica · 2025Article
- A "motor learning based intervention for lower extremities (MOBILE)" to target walking performance in ambulant children with cerebral palsy: A feasibility study.HRB open research · 2025Article
- Orthopedics and Trauma in Children: Key Problems and Future Insights.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
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
Background: Recurrence in cerebral palsy (CP) patients who have undergone operative or non-operative correction varies greatly from one study to another. Therefore, we conducted this meta-analysis to determine the pooled rate of equinus recurrence following its correction either surgically or non-surgically. Methods: Nine electronic databases were searched from inception to 6 May 2021, and the search was updated on 13 August 2021. We included all studies that reported the recurrence rate of equinus following its correction among CP patients. The primary outcome was recurrence, where data were reported as a pooled event (PE) rate and its corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI). We used the Cochrane’s risk of bias (RoB-II) tool and ROBINS-I tool to assess the quality of included randomized and non-randomized trials, respectively. We conducted subgroup analyses to identify the sources of heterogeneity. Results: The overall rate of recurrence was 0.15 (95% CI: 0.05−0.18; I2 = 88%; p < 0.01). Subgroup analyses indicated that the laterality of CP, study design, and intervention type were significant contributors to heterogeneity. The recurrence rate of equinus differed among interventions; it was highest in the multilevel surgery group (PE = 0.27; 95% CI: 0.19−0.38) and lowest in the Ilizarov procedure group (PE = 0.10; 95% CI: 0.04−0.24). Twelve studies had a low risk of bias, eight had a moderate risk, and nine had a serious risk of bias. Conclusion: The recurrence of equinus following its correction, either surgically or non-surgically, in CP patients is notably high. However, due to the poor quality of available evidence, our findings should be interpreted with caution. Future studies are still warranted to determine the actual risk of equinus recurrence in CP.
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.