ArticleChildren (Basel, Switzerland)2024
Bracing of Pectus Carinatum in Children: Current Practices.
Article in Children (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. 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, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
- Establishment of a Specialized Pectus Clinic:Saudi medical journal · 2026Observational
- Ten years of clinical experience in the open surgical treatment of chest wall deformities.Turk gogus kalp damar cerrahisi dergisi · 2026Article
- Compressive bracing for pectus carinatum following congenital heart disease surgery in children: a retrospective cohort study.BMC pediatrics · 2026Article
- The role of age and severity of deformity in the choice of treatment for pectus carinatum: a comparison of braces and surgical correction.Journal of cardiothoracic surgery · 2026Article
- Determinants of Successful Pectus Carinatum Bracing: A Narrative Review.Saudi journal of medicine & medical sciencesReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAlthough effective, compressive orthotic bracing (COB) in children with pectus carinatum is still not standardized. This study has aimed to analyze current practices amongst members of the Chest Wall International Group (CWIG).
methodsA web-based questionnaire was mailed to all CWIG members at 208 departments. It included 30 questions regarding diagnostic work-up, age for COB indication, type of COB used, daily wearing time, treatment duration, complications, and recurrence rate.
resultsMembers from 44 departments have responded (institutional response rate 21.2%). A total of 93% consider COB as the first-line treatment for PC. A conventional COB (CC) is used in 59%, and the dynamic compression system (FMF) in 41%. The overall compliance rate is >80%. A total of 67% of responders consider COB to be indicated in patients <10 years. The actual wearing time is significantly shorter than the physician-recommended time (
conclusionsCOB is the first-line treatment for PC with a high compliance rate. During puberty, the recurrence rate is high. Treatment standardization and follow-up until the end of puberty are recommended to enhance COB effectiveness.
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.