ArticleJoint diseases and related surgery2025
Reviewing the reliability of revised Melbourne Cerebral Palsy Hip Classification System across different medical specialties.
Article in Joint diseases and related surgery, 2025. 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
objectivesThe aim of this study was to measure the reliability of the expanded and revised Melbourne Cerebral Palsy Hip Classification System (r-MCPHCS) across different medical specialties. PATIENTS AND
methodsAnteroposterior pelvic radiographs of a total of 44 patients (20 males, 24 females; median 16.7 years; range, 12 to 32 years) with cerebral palsy (CP) were analyzed between January 2005 and December 2020. Four medical specialists (an orthopedic surgeon, a pediatric neurologist, a radiologist, and a physical medicine and rehabilitation specialist) were included in the study. The time gap between the first and the second assessment was at least three months. The intra- and inter-observer intraclass correlation coefficient (IntraOb. and InterOb. ICCs) were calculated. An ICC of >0.8 was considered excellent fit.
resultsThe median IntraOb. ICC was found to be 0.93 (range, 0.89 to 0.97), the median InterOb. ICC was found to be 0.88 for the first assessment (A) and 0.93 for the second assessment (B). Both results were interpreted as excellent in terms of compatibility.
conclusionOur study results suggest that r-MCPHCS is a well-designed, reliable and reproducible scale that is easy to use among different medical specialists.
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.