ArticleBone & joint open2025
Slipped capital femoral epiphysis in an Indigenous Australian population.
Article in Bone & joint open, 2025. 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.
- Identification and management of unrecognized femoral head epiphysiolysis: a case report.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2026Article
- Unlocking the heterogeneity of pediatric obesity: a phenotypic subtype-based paradigm for precision management.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aims: The aim of this study was to examine the epidemiology and outcomes of slipped capital femoral epiphysis (SCFE) in Australian Indigenous populations, and risk factors of contralateral slip. Methods: This multicentre, retrospective study included 85 Australian Indigenous patients with SCFE from two Northern Territory hospitals between February 2010 and February 2024. Data such as age, posterior slope angle, and slip characteristics were collected. Risk factors for contralateral slip were identified via penalized logistic regression, and the number needed to treat (NNT) was calculated for prophylactic fixation. Results: The median age at diagnosis was 12. 1 years (IQR 11.2 to 13.0), with a high incidence of valgus slips (10.6%). In total, 73 patients (85.9%) did not have prophylactic contralateral hip pinning, of which 13 patients (17.80%) developed a contralateral slip, with younger age and elevated posterior slope angle as significant risk factors. Patients aged under 12 years with a posterior slope angle greater than 9° had a NNT of two for prophylactic fixation, suggesting targeted benefit. Prophylactic fixation showed no subsequent slip or fixation-related complications in our patient population. Conclusion: SCFE in Australian Indigenous patients presents unique challenges, with a higher proportion of valgus slips than reported in other populations. Prophylactic fixation may be beneficial in younger, high-risk patients. These findings highlight the importance of individualized care and a multidisciplinary approach, particularly in remote communities where healthcare access is limited. Tailored interventions for at-risk individuals may improve outcomes and address healthcare disparities in this vulnerable cohort.
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.