ArticlePeerJ2024
Pilot development of diagnostic tools for lower limb apophyseal injuries in children and adolescents.
Article in PeerJ, 2024. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Lower limb apophyseal injuries commonly occur in children and adolescents with unknown incidence and prevalence. These conditions are considered benign, but impact children and adolescents quality of life and can lead to sport withdrawal at a crucial time. The primary aim of this research was to develop self-administered tools for two of the most common apophyseal injuries. The secondary aim was to test the sensitivity and specificity of the tools. Methods: Study 1 used a three round online Delphi panel ( Results: Both tools had excellent diagnostic accuracy with an area under the curve of 83% (95% confidence interval = 0.70 to 0.95) for the posterior heel (calcaneal apophysitis) tool and 93% (95% confidence interval = 0.80 to 1.00) for the anterior of knee (tibial tuberosity apophysitis) tool using the pilot data from the 63 children. Conclusions: These tools may also enhance opportunities for clinicians and health service providers with pre-clinical screening to reduce wait list time and encourage low cost, self-administered management where indicated. These findings may enable large epidemiological studies to identify populations and calculate incidence and prevalence of these conditions using self report.
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.