Migration percentage and odds of recurrence/subsequent surgery after treatment for hip subluxation in pediatric cerebral palsy: A meta-analysis and systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This meta-analysis aims to systematically assess and quantitatively pool the best clinical evidence for migration percentage (MP) and odds ratio (OR) for recurrence/reoperation following treatment for hip subluxation in children with cerebral palsy (CP), including Botulinum Toxin A (BNT-A), soft-tissue lengthening and osteotomies. METHODS: Pubmed, EMBASE and Cochrane were systematically searched from between 1 January 1953 and 11 January 2017 inclusive for studies reporting resubluxation/reoperation rates, and/or MP following treatment for hip subluxation in children with CP. The primary outcome was odds of resubluxation/reoperation. The secondary outcome was change in MP. Studies were graded for quality using the Newcastle Ottawa Scale. This meta-analysis was performed and reported in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. RESULTS: A total of 14 studies were included in analysis of odds of resubluxation/reoperation and 24 studies were included in analysis of MP. The OR for resubluxation/reoperation was lower for combined osteotomies compared with femoral (OR = 0.49; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.25 to 0.98) and for femoral osteotomy compared to soft-tissue procedures (OR = 0.20; 95% CI 0.07 to 0.61). There was no difference in odds of recurrence/reoperation between pelvic and femoral osteotomies (OR = 2.27; 95% CI 0.37 to 13.88). Combined osteotomies provided the greatest improvement in MP, while BoNT-A showed no improvement in MP. CONCLUSION: Resubluxation/reoperation rates are high; management with osteotomies is preferred to soft-tissue procedures alone in preventing resubluxation/reoperation. This meta-analysis is limited by the observational nature and small sample sizes of many of the included studies, with their inherent risk of bias and lack of homogeneity of patient characteristics at baseline. It is possible that with larger and higher quality studies, the results and conclusions of this analysis may be altered.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.015 | 0.047 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.021 | 0.062 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".