The Core outcome Clubfoot (CoCo) study: relapse, with poorer clinical and quality of life outcomes, affects 37% of idiopathic clubfoot patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aims: There is a lack of high-quality research investigating outcomes of Ponseti-treated idiopathic clubfeet and correlation with relapse. This study assessed clinical and quality of life (QoL) outcomes using a standardized core outcome set (COS), comparing children with and without relapse. Methods: A total of 11 international centres participated in this institutional review board-approved observational study. Data including demographics, information regarding presentation, treatment, and details of subsequent relapse and management were collected between 1 June 2022 and 30 June 2023 from consecutive clinic patients who had a minimum five-year follow-up. The clubfoot COS incorporating 31 parameters was used. A regression model assessed relationships between baseline variables and outcomes (clinical/QoL). Results: Overall, 293 patients (432 feet) with a median age of 89 months (interquartile range 72 to 113) were included. The relapse rate was 37%, with repeated relapse in 14%. Treatment considered a standard part of the Ponseti journey (recasting, repeat tenotomy, and tibialis anterior tendon transfer) was performed in 35% of cases, with soft-tissue release and osteotomies in 5% and 2% of cases, respectively. Predictors of relapse included duration of follow-up, higher initial Pirani score, and poor Evertor muscle activity. Relapse was associated with poorer outcomes. Conclusion: This is the first multicentre study using a standardized COS following clubfoot treatment. It distinguishes patients with and without relapse in terms of clinical outcomes and QoL, with poorer outcomes in the relapse group. This tool allows comparison of treatment methods and outcomes, facilitates information sharing, and sets family expectations. Predictors of relapse encourage us to create appropriate treatment pathways to reduce relapse and improve outcome.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".