ArticleBMJ public health2024
Cost-effectiveness of screening for developmental dysplasia of the hip in Karachi, Pakistan using a universally applicable cost-effectiveness model.
Article in BMJ public health, 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.
- Ultrasonography and the Reorientation of Developmental Hip Dysplasia Research: An NLP-NMF Trend Analysis (1980-2024).The Eurasian journal of medicine · 2026Article
- Implementation strategies and economic considerations for point-of-care ultrasound in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A scoping review.PLOS global public health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH) is a congenital anomaly of the hip socket that can lead to lifelong disability and pain when left untreated. DDH is a good candidate for screening because of its high frequency in population, availability of treatment and the possibility of secondary prevention. Pakistan currently does not have any systematic or universal neonatal screening programme for DDH. Methods: The cost-effectiveness model in this study uses one decision tree for each screening scenario: (1) the status quo, (2) universal screening by clinical examination, (3) universal screening by clinical examination with targeted ultrasound (US) screening, (4) and universal screening by US. Loss of disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) is used as outcome variable. Results: When left untreated DDH creates a loss of 3.4 DALYs per person. Clinical examination and targeted US averts most DALYs per dollar spent. Generalised US averts more DALYs overall but requires a greater financial investment per DALY averted. Conclusions: Universal US screening reaches more children and can be considered the more equitable approach but requires 10 times the financial investment clinical examination and targeted US requires. The decision which option is most appropriate for Karachi, Pakistan depends on resource availability, geography, infrastructure, treatment capacity, health system values and societal factors in Pakistan.
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.