MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2152365519

Preventive health care, 2001 update: screening and management of developmental dysplasia of the hip in newborns.

2001· article· en· W2152365519 on OpenAlex
Hema Patel

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHip disorders and treatments
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health CentreMontreal Children's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePhysical examinationMEDLINEIntervention (counseling)Physical therapyEvidence-based medicinePediatricsIntensive care medicineSurgeryPathologyAlternative medicineNursing
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To review the effectiveness of, and make practice recommendations for, serial clinical examination and ultrasound screening for developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH) in newborns. The effectiveness of selective screening of high-risk infants with hip and pelvic radiographs and treatment with abduction therapy are also examined. OPTIONS: Screening: serial clinical examination, ultrasound screening, radiographic evaluation. TREATMENT: abduction therapy. OUTCOMES: Rates of operative intervention, abduction splinting, delayed diagnosis of DDH (beyond 3-6 months), treatment complications and false diagnostic labelling. Long-term functional outcomes were considered important. EVIDENCE: MEDLINE was searched for relevant English-language articles published from 1966 to November 2000 using the key words "screening," "hip," "dislocation," "dysplasia," "congenital" and "ultrasound." Comparative and descriptive studies and key reviews were retrieved, and their bibliographies were manually searched for further studies. BENEFITS, HARMS AND COSTS: Because most infants will have spontaneous resolution of nonteratologic DDH, early identification and intervention results in unnecessary labelling of newborns as having the problem and unnecessary treatment. Ultrasound screening is a highly sensitive but poorly specific measure of clinically relevant DDH. Abduction splinting is associated with a variety of problems, and its effectiveness in treating DDH is not clearly known. At least 20% of infants requiring operative intervention have had splint therapy. The harms of labelling, repetitive investigations, unnecessary splinting and resource consumption associated with screening are substantial. VALUES: The strength of evidence was evaluated using the evidence-based methods of the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care. RECOMMENDATIONS: There is fair evidence to include serial clinical examination of the hips by a trained clinician in the periodic health examination of all infants until they are walking independently (level II-1 and III evidence; grade B recommendation). There is fair evidence to exclude general ultrasound screening for DDH from the periodic health examination of infants (level II-1 and III evidence; grade D recommendation). There is fair evidence to exclude selective screening for DDH from the periodic health examination of high-risk infants (level II-1 and III evidence; grade D recommendation). There is fair evidence to exclude routine radiographic screening for DDH from the periodic health examination of high-risk infants (level III evidence; grade D recommendation). There is insufficient evidence to evaluate the effectiveness of abduction therapy (level III evidence; grade C recommendation), but good evidence to support a period of close observation for newborns with clinically detected DDH (level I evidence; grade A recommendation). However, there is insufficient evidence to determine the optimal duration of observation (level III evidence; grade C recommendation). VALIDATION: The members of the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care reviewed the findings of this analysis through an iterative process. The task force sent the final review and recommendations to selected external expert reviewers, and their feedback was incorporated in the final draft of the manuscript. SPONSORS: The Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care is funded through a partnership between the Provincial and Territorial Ministries of Health and Health Canada.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.379
Threshold uncertainty score0.220

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.240 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it