Observational studyBMJ paediatrics open2024
Who performs neonatal hip assessment: is there a cause for concern?
Observational study in BMJ paediatrics open, 2024. 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Parental preferences for brace weaning in developmental dysplasia of the hip: a discrete choice experiment.Bone & joint open · 2025Article
- The Evaluation Measure for BRACe Experience (EMBRACE): developing a patient-reported outcome measure for infants with hip dysplasia.Bone & joint open · 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 at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe UK falls behind other European countries in the early detection of developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH) and screening strategies differ for early detection. Clinical detection of DDH is challenging and recognised to be dependent on examiner experience. No studies exist assessing the number of personnel currently involved in such assessments.Our objective was to review the current screening procedure by studying a cohort of newborn babies in one teaching hospital and assess the number of health professionals involved in neonatal hip assessment and the number of examinations undertaken during one period by each individual.
methodsThis was a retrospective observational study assessing all babies born consecutively over a 14-week period in 2020. Record of each initial baby check was obtained from BadgerNet. Follow-up data on ultrasound or orthopaedic outpatient referrals were obtained from clinical records.
results1037 babies were examined by 65 individual examiners representing 9 different healthcare professional groups. The range of examinations conducted per examiner was 1-97 with a median of 5.5 examinations per person. 49% of individuals examined 5 or less babies across the 14 weeks, with 18% only performing 1 examination. Of the six babies (0.48%) treated for DDH, one was picked up on neonatal assessment.
conclusionIn a system where so many examiners are involved in neonatal hip assessment, the experience is limited for most examiners. Currently high rates of late presentation of DDH are observed locally, which are in accordance with published national experience. The potential association merits further investigation.
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.