IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0190056.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

What is a good result after clubfoot treatment? A Delphi-based consensus on success by regional clubfoot trainers from across Africa

Author

Listed:
  • Tracey Smythe
  • Andrew Wainwright
  • Allen Foster
  • Christopher Lavy

Abstract

Background: Congenital talipes equino-varus (CTEV), also known as clubfoot, is one of the most common congenital musculoskeletal malformations. Despite this, considerable variation exists in the measurement of deformity correction and outcome evaluation. This study aims to determine the criteria for successful clubfoot correction using the Ponseti technique in low resource settings through Africa. Methods: Using the Delphi method, 18 experienced clubfoot practitioners and trainers from ten countries in Africa ranked the importance of 22 criteria to define an ‘acceptable or good clubfoot correction’ at the end of bracing with the Ponseti technique. A 10cm visual analogue scale was used. They repeated the rating with the results of the mean scores and standard deviation of the first test provided. The consistency among trainers was determined with the intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC). From the original 22 criteria, ten criteria with a mean score >7 and SD 9 and SD

Suggested Citation

  • Tracey Smythe & Andrew Wainwright & Allen Foster & Christopher Lavy, 2017. "What is a good result after clubfoot treatment? A Delphi-based consensus on success by regional clubfoot trainers from across Africa," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(12), pages 1-9, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0190056
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0190056
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0190056
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0190056&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0190056?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0190056. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.