Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38592484›Full record

ReviewEuropean journal of pediatrics2024

Why all newborn hip screening programs have same results-a mini review.

Matias Vaajala Bm, Oskari Pakarinen, Ilkka Helenius, Mikko M Uimonen, Ville T Ponkilainen, Ilari Kuitunen

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in European journal of pediatrics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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.

Matias Vaajala BmFaculty of Medicine and Life Sciences, University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland. matias.vaajala@tuni.fi.
Oskari PakarinenFaculty of Medicine and Life Sciences, University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland.
Ilkka HeleniusDepartment of Orthopaedics, New Childrens Hospital, Helsinki University Hospital, Helsinki, Finland.
Mikko M UimonenFaculty of Medicine and Life Sciences, University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland.
Ville T PonkilainenFaculty of Medicine and Life Sciences, University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland.
Ilari KuitunenDepartment of Pediatrics, Kuopio University Hospital, Kuopio, Finland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

All newborns are screened for developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH), but countries have varying screening practices. The aim of this narrative mini review is to discuss the controversies of the screening and why it seems that all screening programs are likely to have same outcome. Different screening strategies are discussed alongside with other factors influencing DDH in this review. Universal ultrasound (US) has been praised as it finds more immature hips than clinical examination, but it has not been proven to reduce the rates of late-detected DDH or surgical management. Universal US screening increases initial treatment rates, while selective US and clinical screening have similar outcomes regarding late detection rates than universal US. This can be explained by the extrinsic factor affecting the development of the hip joint after birth and thus initial screening during the early weeks cannot find these cases.  Conclusion: It seems that DDH screening strategies have strengths and limitations without notable differences in the most severe outcomes (late-detected cases requiring operative treatment). Thus, it is important to acknowledge that the used screening policy is a combination of values and available resources rather than a decision based on clear evidence.

Indexed as

Developmental Dysplasia of the HipNeonatal ScreeningUltrasonographyHumansInfant, NewbornDevelopmental dysplasia of the hipNewbornsUniversal ultrasound

Identifiers

PMID38592484
PMCPMC11192804

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.