ReviewCureus2023
Conventional Versus Accelerated Ponseti in the Management of Cases of Idiopathic Clubfoot: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Cureus, 2023. 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Management of idiopathic clubfoot: an umbrella review and CPAM-LRC consensus: Limb Reconstruction Committee of Orthopedics Branch of China International Exchange and Promotion Association for Medical and Health Care (CPAM-LRC).Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2025Pooled it
- Comparison of 1 Week Accelerated Ponseti and Standard Ponseti Technique for Management of Idiopathic Congenital Talipes Equinovarus Deformity in Infants: A Randomized Controlled Trial.Indian journal of orthopaedics · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aimed to compare the outcomes of the accelerated and standard Ponseti method for clubfoot pathology by constructing a systematic review and meta-analysis of relevant randomized controlled trials and nonrandomized comparative studies. A systematic search was conducted to identify the relevant studies through PubMed, Google Scholar, and Cochrane depending on Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The keywords used included "accelerated" AND "standard" AND "Ponseti" AND "clubfoot" AND "Congenital Talipes Equinovarus" AND "CTEV" AND "prospective comparative design" AND "randomized trial." We conducted this analysis among 13 studies that met the criteria adopted in this review where eight studies were prospective comparative studies, and five studies were randomized prospective comparative studies which were published in the period between 2015 and 2022. Statistically, accelerated Ponseti showed superior impact over standard Ponseti considering the duration of treatment (22.53 days vs. 40.61 days, p<0.001). No significant difference was reported between the two methods considering final Pirani score (0.64 vs. 0.56, p=0.194), number of casts (5.23 vs. 5.25, p=0.425), rate of tenotomy (66.2% vs. 63.1%, OR=1.246, 95% CI: 0.86-1.80, p=0.245), relapse rate (9.51% vs. 8.54%, OR=1.126, 95% CI: 0.68-1.86, p=0.642) and complication rate (14.4% vs. 13.1%, OR=1.130, 95% CI: 0.58-2.19, p=0.717). We concluded that the accelerated Ponseti method could achieve comparable efficacy to the standard method in terms of post-procedure Pirani score, tenotomy rate, relapse rate, complications rate, and number of casts needed by the patients with advantage of requiring shorter duration of treatment which is associated with more patient's compliance.
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.