Examining the Short-Term Natural History of Developmental Dysplasia of the Hip in Infancy: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study was an update on the AAOS clinical practice guideline's analysis of the natural history of developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH). The objective was to delineate the natural history of clinical instability or radiologic abnormalities of the hip in infants by identifying the proportion of cases that resolved without treatment compared to cases that progressed and/or required treatment. METHODS: We performed a literature search of PUBMED to identify studies which evaluated the natural history of DDH. We used the same search strategy as that utilized in the previous AAOS guidelines, updated to include articles published between September 2013 and May 2021. We assessed the quality of included articles using the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine level of evidence and reported study demographics and outcomes using summary statistics. RESULTS: Twenty-four articles met our eligibility criteria. Most included studies were retrospective (14/24), investigated either the incidence of DDH (8/24) or assessed screening programs (7/24). The most prevalent study population followed were Graf 2A hips (7/24). Most studies were low quality with level of evidence 3 (13/24) or 4 (7/24). Sample sizes ranged from 9 to 3251. Twenty studies reported the number of cases resolved over the follow-up period with a mean rate of 84.3% (95% confidence interval 76.1, 92.6). CONCLUSION: We found most mild-to-moderate DDH can resolve without treatment in early infancy, especially in physiologically immature (Graf 2A) hips. More high-quality evidence is needed to properly assess the natural history of DDH as only one included study was a randomized trial. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s43465-021-00510-6.
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 | 0.014 | 0.078 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".