Comparison of brace to observation in stable, radiological developmental dysplasia of the hip: a protocol for a global multicentre non-inferiority randomised trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Brace treatment is common to address radiological dysplasia in infants with developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH); however, it is unclear whether bracing provides significant benefit above careful observation by ultrasound. If observation alone is non-inferior to bracing for radiological dysplasia, unnecessary treatment may be avoided. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to determine whether observation is non-inferior to bracing for infants with radiological dysplasia. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This will be a multicentre, global, randomised, non-inferiority trial performed under the auspices of a global prospective registry for infants and children diagnosed with DDH. Patients will be included if they present with radiological dysplasia (centred hip, alpha angle 43-60°, percent femoral head coverage greater than 35% measured on ultrasound) of a clinically stable hip under 3 months old. Patients will be excluded if they present with clinical hip instability, have received prior treatment or have known/suspected neuromuscular, collagen, chromosomal or lower-extremity congenital abnormalities or syndromic-associated hip abnormalities. Patients will be enrolled and randomised to undergo observation alone or brace treatment with a Pavlik harness for a minimum of 6 weeks. Follow-up visits will occur at 6 weeks, 1 year and 2 years post-enrolment. The primary outcome will be the norm-referenced acetabular index measured on the 2-year radiograph with a 3° non-inferiority margin. A total of 514 patients will be included.The study is anticipated to start in April 2024 and end in September 2028.The primary outcome will be compared between arms with a mixed-effects model with a random intercept for study centre, and a single covariate for the treatment group. If the lower bound of the 95% CI lies within 3° of the mean, we will treat this as evidence for non-inferiority. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval has been obtained from the lead site's ethics board (University of British Columbia, Children's and Women's Research Ethics Board). Ethics approval will be obtained from the local ethics committees or institutional review boards at each institution prior to patient enrolment. It is intended that the results of this study shall be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at suitable conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05869851.
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 | 0.030 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.040 | 0.006 |
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".