Hui 2014.

Study characteristics
Methods	RCT. Prospective 2‐arm, parallel‐group design Participants were randomised (not feet)
Participants	30 participants (44 feet) who presented to a regional tertiary‐level children's hospital Inclusion criteria: diagnosis of idiopathic CTEV Exclusion criteria: children with non‐idiopathic cause of CTEV ( e.g. arthrogryposis), children previously treated for CTEV, positional deformity PARTICIPANT CHARACTRISTICS Age mean (range): SRF (semi‐rigid fibreglass) group 2 weeks (1 to 11.7); plaster of Paris group 2.3 weeks (0.7 to 5.7) Plaster of Paris casting group Characteristics of feet: 12 participants (18 feet), 6 bilateral Baseline severity: mean Pirani score 4.9 (range 3 to 6) SRF casting group Characteristics of feet: 18 participants (26 feet), 8 bilateral Baseline severity: mean Pirani score 5.3 (range 2 to 6)
Interventions	Comparison of cast materials: plaster of Paris versus SRF using the Ponseti method Both plaster of Paris and SRF groups received weekly above‐knee plasters according to Ponseti method. Achilles tenotomy was performed if dorsiflexion was < 15 ° and after sufficient abduction of the foot, approximately 60 ° was achieved. Participants in both groups were fitted with FAO at the end of casting. Follow‐up: mean for SRF group, 35.8 ± 11.3 months, mean plaster of Paris group 23.7 ± 14.4 months
Outcomes	Pirani score Number of casts required for correction of clubfoot Need for percutaneous tendo‐achilles tenotomy Total time in casts (weeks) Ease of cast removal Duration of cast removal (minutes) Methods of cast removal Complications relating to the casting material Compliance with post‐correction FAO Deformity relapse Need for repeat Ponseti casting Need for ancillary surgical procedures.
Conflicts of interest	Quote: "Competing Interests: None declared"
Funding	Not stated
Notes	Location: Canada Dates conducted: July 2007 to December 2008
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Computer‐generated randomisation
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	Randomisation was performed using concealed number‐tracked envelopes according to a computer‐generated randomisation list
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	Unable to blind participants and personnel
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Not stated if assessors were blinded
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	There was 1 dropout in each group
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	High risk	Insufficient reporting of relapse data
Other bias	Unclear risk	The trial report did not include sufficient detail to judge whether there could be other bias