Studies of infant hip development to date have been limited by considering only the changes in appearance of a single ultrasound slice (Graf’s standard plane). We used 3D ultrasound (3DUS) to establish maturation curves of normal infant hip development, quantifying variation by age, sex, side, and anteroposterior location in the hip. We analyzed 3DUS scans of 519 infants (mean age 64 days (6 to 111 days)) presenting at a tertiary children’s hospital for suspicion of developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH). Hips that did not require ultrasound follow-up or treatment were classified as ‘typically developing’. We calculated traditional DDH indices like α angle (αSP), femoral head coverage (FHCSP), and several novel indices from 3DUS like the acetabular contact angle (ACA) and osculating circle radius (OCR) using custom software.Aims
Methods
The promotion and practice of evidence-based medicine necessitates a critical evaluation of medical literature including the “gold standard” of randomised clinical trials. Recent studies have examined the quality of randomised clinical trials in various surgical specialties, but no study has focused on pediatric orthopedics. The purpose of this study was to assess and describe the quality of randomised clinical trials published in the last ten years in journals with high clinical impact in pediatric orthopaedics. All of the randomised clinical trials in pediatric orthopedics published in five well-recognised journals between 1995–2005 were reviewed using the Detsky Quality Assessment Scale. The mean percentage score on the Detsky Scale was 53% (95% CI: 46%–60%). Only seven (19%) of the articles satisfied the threshold for a satisfactory level of methodologic quality (Detsky >
75%). The majority of randomised clinical trials in pediatric orthopedics that are published in well-recognised, peer-reviewed journals demonstrate substantial deficiencies in methodologic quality. Particular areas of weakness include inadequate rigor and reporting of randomization methods, use of inappropriate or poorly-described outcome measures, inadequate description of inclusion and exclusion criteria and inappropriate statistical analysis. Further efforts are necessary to improve the conduct and reporting of clinical trials in this field in order to avoid inadvertent misinformation of the clinical community.
