ArticleEuropean journal of pediatrics2024
Foot and ankle problems in children and young people: a population-based cohort study.
Article 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 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.
- Intrinsic vs. combined foot muscle strengthening for pes planovalgus in children aged 4-7 years: a randomized controlled trial.European journal of pediatrics · 2025Trial
- Primary Care and Linked Secondary Care Encounters for Foot and Ankle Problems in Children and Young People: A Population-Based Cohort Study in England.Journal of foot and ankle research · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of this research was to describe the epidemiology, presentation and healthcare use in primary care for foot and ankle problems in children and young people (CYP) across England. We undertook a population-based cohort study using data from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink Aurum database, a database of anonymised electronic health records from general practices across England. Data was accessed for all CYP aged 0-18 years presenting to their general practitioner between January 2015 and December 2021 with a foot and/or ankle problem. Consultation rates were calculated and used to estimate numbers of consultations in an average practice. Hierarchical Poisson regression estimated relative rates of consultations across sociodemographic groups and logistic regression evaluated factors associated with repeat consultations. A total of 416,137 patients had 687,753 foot and ankle events, of which the majority were categorised as "musculoskeletal" (34%) and "unspecified pain" (21%). Rates peaked at 601 consultations per 10,000 patient-years among males aged 10-14 years in 2018. An average practice might observe 132 (95% CI 110 to 155) consultations annually. Odds for repeat consultations were higher among those with pre-existing diagnoses including juvenile arthritis (OR 1.73, 95% CI 1.48 to 2.03). Conclusions: Consultations for foot and ankle problems were high among CYP, particularly males aged 10 to 14 years. These data can inform service provision to ensure CYP access appropriate health professionals for accurate diagnosis and treatment. What is Known: • Foot and ankle problems can have considerable impact on health-related quality of life in children and young people (CYP). • There is limited data describing the nature and frequency of foot and ankle problems in CYP. What is New: • Foot and ankle consultations were higher in English general practice among CYP aged 10 to 14 years compared to other age groups, and higher among males compared to females. • The high proportion of unspecified diagnoses and repeat consultations suggests there is need for greater integration between general practice and allied health professionals in community-based healthcare settings.
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.