ArticlePrenatal diagnosis2026
Can Prenatal Ultrasound and Genetic Testing Reliably Exclude Non-Isolated Clubfoot?
Article in Prenatal diagnosis, 2026. 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.
- Can Prenatal Ultrasound and Genetic Testing Reliably Exclude Non-Isolated Clubfoot?Prenatal diagnosis · 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
objectiveThe aim of this study is to evaluate the efficacy of prenatal second trimester ultrasound in diagnosing isolated congenital clubfoot and to assess the role of prenatal genetic testing.
methodsWe conducted a retrospective cohort study in the North-West region of the Netherlands with prenatally suspected clubfoot between 16 and 24 weeks of gestation from 2007 to 2021. We included isolated cases, defined as no additional structural anomalies on the initial targeted ultrasound. Rapid aneuploidy testing, chromosomal microarray analysis, and/or exome sequencing were performed via invasive testing following on parental request.
resultsWe identified 423 cases of isolated clubfoot. The diagnosis changed to prenatal non-isolated clubfoot during prenatal follow-up in 20 cases (5%); in 10 cases during a follow-up ultrasound, and in 10 cases, an underlying genetic condition was found. In 11 cases, the initial suspicion of clubfoot was not confirmed at follow-up ultrasound. There were 387 ongoing pregnancies with a prenatal diagnosis of isolated clubfoot. In 47 children (12%), diagnosis changed postnatally to non-isolated. These postnatal findings were classified as major in 36 children (9%). In 40 cases (10%), the prenatal diagnosis of clubfoot was not confirmed postnatally.
conclusionPrenatal ultrasound combined with genetic testing are components in the work-up of clubfoot, enabling the identification of associated structural anomalies and underlying genetic disorders. Despite advances in prenatal ultrasound and genetic testing, distinguishing isolated clubfoot from cases with additional structural or genetic anomalies remains challenging. Moreover, prenatal genetic testing does not exclude the absence of structural or neurodevelopmental issues diagnosed after birth.
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.