ArticleInternational journal of epidemiology2025
Isolated clubfoot in the Northern Territory of Australia: birth prevalence and population description.
Article in International journal of epidemiology, 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundClubfoot prevalence in the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander population (hereafter Indigenous population) is reportedly higher than globally. This study enumerates and describes the isolated (also 'idiopathic') clubfoot population in Australia's Northern Territory (NT), where 30% of the population is Indigenous.
methodsIn this retrospective study, medical records were searched to identify all cases in the NT born in 2009-22 inclusive. Birth prevalence was calculated by using established methods. Logistic regression estimated odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) comparing characteristics of Indigenous with non-Indigenous babies with clubfoot.
resultsThe birth prevalence of isolated clubfoot (150 cases/53 591 births) was 2.80/1000 (95% CI: 2.35-3.25). For 109 Indigenous babies, the prevalence was five times higher (5.99, 95% CI: 4.87-7.12) than for non-Indigenous babies (1.16, 95% CI: 0.84-1.56) and three times higher in Indigenous males (4.11, 95% CI: 3.35-4.86) than females (1.42, 95% CI: 0.96-1.88). Among babies with clubfoot, Indigenous babies with clubfoot were more likely to be male (OR = 2.68; 95% CI: 1.22-5.90; P = 0.014), from remote or very remote localities (OR = 14.24; CI: 5.98-33.90; P < 0.001), and have younger mothers (OR = 13.88; 95% CI: 3.90-49.39; P < 0.001).
conclusionThe prevalence of isolated clubfoot in Australia's NT is higher than global estimates and other Australian reports, and disproportionately affects Indigenous babies. An Australian clubfoot register would be invaluable to improve the national understanding of prevalence patterns. Given the disproportionate prevalence in Indigenous babies, culturally responsive service provision, clinical outcomes, and experiences of their families warrant investigation.
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.