The global birth prevalence of clubfoot: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Estimates of the birth prevalence of clubfoot in low and middle income settings range from 0.5 to 2 per 1000 births. However, there is currently no estimate of global birth prevalence of clubfoot. Methods: We conducted a systematic review of studies reporting the birth prevalence of clubfoot across all countries and regions worldwide in the last 10 years. Africa Wide Information, EMBASE, CINAHL, Global Health, LILACS and Medline databases were searched for relevant studies from January 1st 2012 to February 9th 2023. Pooled prevalence estimates were calculated using the inverse variance method, and a random effects model was applied to account for heterogeneity between studies. Quality appraisal was performed using a modified Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale for Cohort studies. This review was registered with PROSPERO, CRD42023398410. Findings: The search generated 757 studies. Thirty-five studies from 36 countries and five WHO regions were included. The pooled prevalence of clubfoot was 1.18 per 1000 births (95% CI: 1.00-1.36) based on data from 44,818,965 births. The highest prevalence rates were observed in low- and middle-income countries, particularly in the South-East Asia Region (1.80, 95% CI: 1.32-2.28) and the Africa Region (1.31, 95% CI: 0.86-1.77). We estimate that 176,476 (95% CI: 126,126-227,010) children will be born with clubfoot globally each year. Interpretation: This study provides a comprehensive estimate of the global prevalence of clubfoot and highlights the significant burden of this condition, particularly in low- and middle-income countries. The findings underscore the need for improving access to effective treatment and prevention strategies in resource-limited settings. Funding: SR received funds from the Global Clubfoot Initiative and the Rhodes Trust.
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 | 0.017 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.021 | 0.028 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".