ReviewCureus2024
Kite Versus Ponseti Method in the Treatment of Idiopathic Congenital Clubfoot: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Management of idiopathic clubfoot: an umbrella review and CPAM-LRC consensus: Limb Reconstruction Committee of Orthopedics Branch of China International Exchange and Promotion Association for Medical and Health Care (CPAM-LRC).Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2025Pooled it
- Pearls and Pitfalls of Ponseti Method Bracing for Idiopathic Clubfoot-An Institutional Guide to Optimize Orthotic Management.Journal of the Pediatric Orthopaedic Society of North America · 2026Review
- Stepping strong: Nurse-led support for mothers in clubfoot care.Bioinformation · 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Kite and Ponseti methods are two popular manipulating methods for correcting the deformity of idiopathic congenital clubfoot. We aimed to compare the efficacy of Kite and Ponseti methods in the treatment of children with idiopathic congenital clubfoot. A search was launched on Medline/PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, the Web of Science, ProQuest, and Scopus without limits, from inception to May 1, 2024. The outcomes included the rates of initial correction and relapse (primary) as well as the number of casts and duration of treatment (secondary). Mean difference (MD) and risk ratio (RR) were calculated for numerical and dichotomous outcomes, respectively, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Nine studies were included. Meta-analysis showed the Ponseti method is significantly associated with a higher probability of correction (n = 6, RR = 1.23 [95% CI = 1.14, 1.32], p < 0.001) and a lower risk of relapse (n = 5, RR = 0.50 [95% CI = 0.36, 0.71], p < 0.001) compared to the Kite method. The Ponseti method utilized a lower number of casts (MD = -3.0 [95% CI = -5.8, -0.2], p = 0.04) and took a shorter duration (MD = -39.76 [95% CI = -67.22, -12.30], p = 0.02) than the Kite method. Evidence suggests that the Ponseti method results in better outcomes than the Kite method in terms of successful initial correction and lower relapse rates. However, the available studies showed varying degrees of risk of bias, and the length of follow-up was inadequate in some studies.
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.