Pittner 2008.

Study characteristics
Methods	RCT. 2‐arm, parallel‐group design Randomisation was done according to medical record number. Participants were randomised (not feet)
Participants	34 participants with 42 CTEV feet who attended author's outpatient clinics Inclusion criteria: initial presentation of CTEV Exclusion criteria: none stated PARTICIPANT CHARACTERISTICS 3 participants excluded prior to data analysis. 1 lost to follow‐up, 1 had medical complications, and 1 switched groups during treatment Fibreglass Age mean (SD) weeks: 1.07 (0.57) Sex male:female: 9:4 Characteristics of feet: 13 participants. 16 feet (8 left, 8 right) Baseline severity: Diméglio scale score average: 13.1 Plaster Age mean (SD) weeks: 1.89 (1.88) Sex male:female: 18:0 Characteristics of feet: 18 participants. 23 feet: 9 left, 14 right Baseline severity: Diméglio scale average: 12.3
Interventions	Semi‐rigid (fibreglass) casts versus plaster of Paris casts for Ponseti treatment of initial presentation of CTEV In the semi‐rigid (fibreglass) group, casting was done using Scotchcast Softcast (3M). In the control group, plaster of Paris was used Follow‐up: end of treatment
Outcomes	Diméglio scale Parent satisfaction questionnaire
Conflicts of interest	None declared
Funding	None declared
Notes	Location: USA Dates conducted: 15 month period (dates not stated)
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	High risk	Sequence generated by medical record number. Not stated how this was done
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	High risk	Sequence generated by medical record number
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	Unable to blind intervention providers. Participant blinding unlikely to affect outcome
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	High risk	Assessors not blinded
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	High risk	Several participants were excluded after randomisation or lost to follow‐up. Their data were removed from the study
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	Objective was to compare materials ‐ primary/secondary outcomes were not stated in Methods section.
Other bias	Unclear risk	The trial report did not include sufficient detail to judge whether there could be other bias