MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4407247555 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2024-094660

Screening, diagnosis, treatment and outcomes of developmental dysplasia of the hip in Brazilian population: a scoping review

2025· review· en· W4407247555 on OpenAlexaff
Patrícia Eduarda Conrado Martins Rocha Jaleca, Daniel F. Liggio, Sheila Lam, Emily K. Schaeffer, Patrícia Moreno Grangeiro

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHip disorders and treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersConselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico
KeywordsMedicineEpidemiologyPopulationPublic healthMEDLINEFamily medicineIntensive care medicinePhysical therapyPediatricsGerontologyEnvironmental healthPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: This study aims to map the literature on screening, diagnosis, treatment and outcomes of developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH) in the Brazilian population aged 0-18 years, to describe regional variations in its presentation and management. DESIGN: Scoping review. DATA SOURCES: PubMed/MEDLINE, Web of Science, Scopus, "Biblioteca Virtual em Saúde" and "Biblioteca Digital Brasileira de Teses e Dissertações". The journals, Revista Brasileira Ortopedia and Acta Ortopédica Brasileira, were manually searched for non-indexed issues. Databases were searched from their inception to February 2024. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: This scoping review included studies on Brazilian patients aged 0-18 years diagnosed with or being assessed for DDH. No language or date restrictions were applied. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Studies were assessed based on title, authors, publication year, study design, sample size, level of evidence, region of Brazil and healthcare setting (public or private). The articles were then analysed across four categories: screening, diagnosis, treatment and outcomes. RESULTS: 52 studies, published between 1951 and 2023, were included. Reported prevalence rates ranged from 0.75 to 56.4 cases per 1000 children. No study examined the effectiveness of specific screening programmes or compared their outcomes. The most common diagnostic methods were the Ortolani manoeuvre and ultrasonography using the Graf method. Of the 27 articles on treatment, 17 focused exclusively on surgical interventions, with the Salter osteotomy being the most frequent procedure. CONCLUSIONS: There should be a greater focus on understanding the prevalence of DDH in Brazil, the availability of ultrasound devices and trained operators, and the follow-up of conservative treatments. More information on DDH in Brazil is essential for designing and implementing effective screening and treatment programmes. Future research should be done to understand the prevalence of the disease, optimal forms of screening and early treatment.

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.059
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.064

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.059
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.004
Bibliometrics0.0190.016
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.125
GPT teacher head0.477
Teacher spread0.353 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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