ArticleBone & joint open2025
Identifying research priorities in clubfoot management through a Delphi process : a study protocol.
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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Establishing the UK clubfoot research priorities : a multiple-stakeholder consensus study.Bone & joint open · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aims: Clubfoot is the most common congenital foot deformity. Clubfoot management is lacking high-quality research to support clinical decision-making. It has been chosen as one of the elective priorities in research by the James Lind Alliance priority setting. We present the protocol of a consensus-based approach to identify research priorities for clinical trials in clubfoot management. Methods: A modified Delphi technique will be used, which will involve an initial scoping survey, a two-round Delphi process, and a consensus meeting. The survey will be conducted among key stakeholders in the management of clubfoot, as well as patients and carers in the UK. The priorities identified during this process will each be assigned to core areas of consideration. The final list of research priorities will then be discussed and agreed in a consensus meeting of representative key stakeholders. Conclusion: While treatment of clubfoot has become more consistent with the use of the Ponseti method, most research is retrospective from single centres, and outcomes are variable. Identifying research priorities in this group of patients through this study will shape and drive the development of multicentre prospective clinical trials deemed most important for improving clinical practice and health outcomes.
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.