Systematic review and meta-analysis of global birth prevalence of clubfoot: a study protocol

Adnan Ansar, Ahmed Ehsanur Rahman, Lorena Romero, Mohammad Rifat Haider, Mohammad Masudur Rahman, Md Moinuddin, Md Abu Bakkar Siddique, Md Al Mamun, Tapas Mazumder, Shafique Pyarali Pirani, Richard Gordon Mathias, Shams Ei Arifeen, Dewan Md Emdadul Hoque, Adnan Ansar, Ahmed Ehsanur Rahman, Lorena Romero, Mohammad Rifat Haider, Mohammad Masudur Rahman, Md Moinuddin, Md Abu Bakkar Siddique, Md Al Mamun, Tapas Mazumder, Shafique Pyarali Pirani, Richard Gordon Mathias, Shams Ei Arifeen, Dewan Md Emdadul Hoque

Abstract

Introduction: Clubfoot is a common congenital birth defect, with an average prevalence of approximately 1 per 1000 live births, although this rate is reported to vary among different countries around the world. If it remains untreated, clubfoot causes permanent disability, limits educational and employment opportunities, and personal growth. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to estimate the global birth prevalence of congenital clubfoot.

Methods and analysis: Electronic databases including MEDLINE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Embase, Global Health, Latin American & Caribben Health Science Literature (LILACS), Maternity and Infant Care, Web of Science, Scopus and Google Scholar will be searched for observational studies based on predefined criteria and only in English language from inception of database in 1946 to 10 November 2017. A standard data extraction form will be used to extract relevant information from included studies. The Joanna Briggs Institute appraisal checklist will be used to assess the overall quality of studies reporting prevalence. All included studies will be assessed for risk of bias using a tool developed specifically for prevalence studies. Forest plots will be created to understand the overall random effects of pooled estimates with 95% CIs. An I2 test will be done for heterogeneity of the results (P>0.05), and to identify the source of heterogeneity across studies, subgroup or meta-regression will be used to assess the contribution of each variable to the overall heterogeneity. A funnel plot will be used to identify reporting bias, and sensitivity analysis will be used to assess the impact of methodological quality, study design, sample size and the impact of missing data.

Ethics and dissemination: This review will be conducted completely based on published data, so approval from an ethics committee or written consent will not be required. The results will be disseminated through a peer-reviewed publication and relevant conference presentations.

Prospero registration number: CRD42016041922.

Keywords: clubfoot prevalence; congenital anomaly of foot; congenital talipes equinovarus; foot deformity; global.

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: None declared.

© Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2018. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Conceptual framework of systematic review and meta-analysis for birth prevalence of clubfoot. MDGs, Millennium Development Goals.

References

    1. Aggarwal A, Gupta N. The role of pirani scoring system in the management and outcome of idiopathic club foot by ponseti method.
    1. Penny JN. The neglected clubfoot. Techniques in Orthopaedics 2005;20:153–66. 10.1097/01.bto.0000162987.08300.5e
    1. Werler MM, Yazdy MM, Mitchell AA, et al. . Descriptive epidemiology of idiopathic clubfoot. Am J Med Genet A 2013;161A:1569–78. 10.1002/ajmg.a.35955
    1. Chung CS, Nemechek RW, Larsen IJ, et al. . Genetic and Epidemiological Studies of Clubfoot in Hawaii. Hum Hered 1969;19:321–42. 10.1159/000152236
    1. DeValentine SJ. Foot and ankle disorders in children: Churchill Livingstone, 1992.
    1. Janicki JA, Narayanan UG, Harvey B, et al. . Treatment of neuromuscular and syndrome-associated (nonidiopathic) clubfeet using the Ponseti method. J Pediatr Orthop 2009;29:393–7. 10.1097/BPO.0b013e3181a6bf77
    1. Staheli L. Clubfoot: ponseti management Ponseti management. 3rd ed Seattle, WA: Global Help Organization, 2009.
    1. Lewin S, Lavis JN, Oxman AD, et al. . Supporting the delivery of cost-effective interventions in primary health-care systems in low-income and middle-income countries: an overview of systematic reviews. Lancet 2008;372:928–39. 10.1016/S0140-6736(08)61403-8
    1. McElroy T, Konde-Lule J, Neema S, et al. . Understanding the barriers to clubfoot treatment adherence in Uganda: a rapid ethnographic study. Disabil Rehabil 2007;29:845–55. 10.1080/09638280701240102
    1. Dobbs MB, Gurnett CA. Update on clubfoot: etiology and treatment. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2009;467:1146–53. 10.1007/s11999-009-0734-9
    1. Christianson A, Howson CP, Modell B. March of Dimes: global report on birth defects, the hidden toll of dying and disabled children. White Plains, NY: March of Dimes Birth Defects Foundation; 2005.
    1. Dobbs MB, Nunley R, Schoenecker PL. Long-term follow-up of patients with clubfeet treated with extensive soft-tissue release. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2006;88:986–96. 10.2106/JBJS.E.00114
    1. Wallander H, Hovelius L, Michaelsson K. Incidence of congenital clubfoot in Sweden. Acta Orthop 2006;77:847–52. 10.1080/17453670610013123
    1. INITIATIVE GC. What is clubfoot, 2016. (accessed 29 Mar 2016).
    1. Parker SE, Mai CT, Strickland MJ, et al. . Multistate study of the epidemiology of clubfoot. Birth Defects Res A Clin Mol Teratol 2009;85:897–904. 10.1002/bdra.20625
    1. Wynne-Davies R. Family studies and the cause of congenital club foot. Bone & Joint Journal 1964;46:445–63.
    1. Mathias RG, Lule JK, Waiswa G, et al. . Incidence of clubfoot in Uganda. Can J Public Health 2010;101:341–4.
    1. Smythe T, Kuper H, Macleod D, et al. . Birth prevalence of congenital talipes equinovarus in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Trop Med Int Health 2017;22:269–85. 10.1111/tmi.12833
    1. Centre for Reviews and Dissemination UoY. Systematic Reviews CRD’s guidance for undertaking reviews in health care: York Publishing Services Ltd, 2009.
    1. Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC, et al. . Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Jama 2000;283:2008–12.
    1. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, et al. . Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ 2009;338:332 10.1136/bmj.b2535
    1. Cochrane data abstraction. (accessed 9 Nov 2017).
    1. Munn Z, Moola S, Lisy K, et al. . The Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewers’ Manual 2014 The systematic review of prevalence and incidence data. Adelaide, SA: The Joanna Briggs Institute, 2014.
    1. Zeng X, Zhang Y, Kwong JS, et al. . The methodological quality assessment tools for preclinical and clinical studies, systematic review and meta-analysis, and clinical practice guideline: a systematic review. J Evid Based Med 2015;8:2–10. 10.1111/jebm.12141
    1. Popay J, Roberts H, Sowden A, et al. . Guidance on the conduct of narrative synthesis in systematic reviews A product from the ESRC methods programme Version. 2006;1:b92.
    1. Way C. The millennium development goals report 2015: UN, 2015.
    1. Newcombe RG. Two-sided confidence intervals for the single proportion: comparison of seven methods. Stat Med 1998;17:857–72. 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0258(19980430)17:8<857::AID-SIM777>;2-E
    1. Agresti A, Coull BA. Approximate is better than “exact” for interval estimation of binomial proportions. The American Statistician 1998;52:119–26. 10.1080/00031305.1998.10480550
    1. Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, et al. . Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ 2003;327:557–60. 10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557
    1. Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M, et al. . Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ 1997;315:629–34. 10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629
    1. Hoque DME, Kumari V, Hoque M, et al. . Impact of clinical registries on quality of patient care and clinical outcomes: A systematic review. PLoS One 2017;12:e0183667 10.1371/journal.pone.0183667

Source: PubMed

スポンサーと協力者

医学的状態

薬物療法

3
購読する