ArticleJornal de pediatria
Estimation of standing height in spina bifida: model development and validation.
Article in Jornal de pediatria. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveChildhood standing height has been estimated from arm span-related (height
methodsParticipants were individuals with sacral and low-lumbar SB (n = 14) and non-SB (n = 83), 7-16 years old. Arm span, age, sex, and group (SB vs. non-SB) were candidate height predictors. Sequential regression and leave-one-out cross-validation approaches were used for the model development (M1) and cross-validation (M1-M5). Existing models were: an SB-specific model from Polfuss et al. (M2) and non-SB specific models from Gauld et al. (M3), Mulu et al. (M4), and Zverev et al. (M5) studies.
resultsArm span and group explained 95 % of the variance in height (R
conclusionsModels (M1, M2 and M5) may accurately estimate standing height in groups of children with SB. However, due to the wide limits of agreement, caution is recommended when applying these models for individual height estimations.
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.