MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3162645023

Screening for Developmental Dysplasia of the Hip [Internet]

2006· article· en· W3162645023 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Scott A. Shipman, Mark Helfand, Peggy Nygren, Christina Bougatsos

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHip disorders and treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePsychological interventionContext (archaeology)MEDLINEPhysical therapyData extractionSystematic reviewClinical trialAvascular necrosisIntensive care medicineSurgeryInternal medicineFemoral head
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Context Developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH) can lead to the later development of chronic pain, osteoarthritis, and limitations in activity. Screening for DDH has been practiced for over 40 years, but recommendations from major professional societies differ. Objective To synthesize the evidence on risks and benefits of screening for DDH. Data Sources MEDLINE (through Sept, 2004), Cochrane CENTRAL, and previous comprehensive literature reviews. Study Selection We focused our review on information gaps identified in previous reviews conducted for the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care. Specifically, we focused on comparative studies of clinical examination vs. ultrasound screening; studies of the effect of nonsurgical and surgical treatments for DDH on functional outcomes; and studies reporting rates of avascular necrosis with different interventions. Data Extraction Using present criteria, the authors assessed the quality of included trials and abstracted information about settings, patients, interventions, and outcomes. Data Synthesis No published trials directly link screening to improved functional outcomes. Clinical examination and ultrasound identify somewhat different groups of newborns at risk for DDH; the lack of an untreated cohort or definitive gold standard made it impossible to estimate sensitivity and specificity for the different tests. Few studies examine the functional outcomes of patients who have undergone therapy for DDH. Due to the high rate and unpredictable nature of spontaneous resolution of DDH and the absence of comparative studies of intervention vs. no intervention, the effectiveness of interventions is not known. Avascular necrosis (AVN) of the hip, the most common and most severe harm of all treatments for DDH, can result in growth arrest of the hip and eventual joint destruction with significant disability. Reported rates of AVN very widely. Conclusion Screening with clinical examination or ultrasound can identify newborns at risk for DDH, but due to the high rate of spontaneous resolution of neonatal hip instability and dysplasia and the lack of evidence of the effectiveness of interventions on functional outcomes, the net benefits of screening are not clear. Key Words DDH, Hip Dysplasia, mass screening

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.108

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0120.011
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0320.003

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.244 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHip disorders and treatments→French-language works237,207→