Polymorphism of reduced folate carrier 1 (A80G) and non-syndromic cleft lip/palate: A systematic review and meta-analysis

2019 ◽  
Vol 98 ◽  
pp. 273-279 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mohammad Moslem Imani ◽  
Hamid Reza Mozaffari ◽  
Roohollah Sharifi ◽  
Masoud Sadeghi
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Cleft Lip ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Reduced Folate Carrier ◽  
Cleft Lip Palate

Perioperative Management of Cleft Lip Repair: A Meta-Analysis and Clinical Practice Guideline

2021 ◽  
pp. 105566562098490
Author(s):  
Matthew Ranzer ◽  
Edward Daniele ◽  
Chad A. Purnell
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Cleft Lip ◽  
Wound Closure ◽  
Perioperative Management ◽  
Outpatient Surgery ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Bottle Feeding ◽  
Perioperative Antibiotics ◽  
Cleft Lip Repair ◽  
Postoperative Feeding

Objective: Few studies have focused on perioperative management of cleft lip repair. We sought to evaluate the available data on this topic to create evidence-based clinical guidelines. Design: Systematic review, meta-analysis. Methods: A PubMed search was performed focusing on perioperative management of cleft lip repair. Studies were included if they included comparative data. A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed according to preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Main Outcome Measures: Systematic review of literature regarding wound closure, postoperative arm restraints, perioperative antibiotics, outpatient or ambulatory surgery, or feeding restrictions postoperatively. Results: Twenty-three articles met inclusion criteria after initial screening of 3103 articles. This included 8 articles on wound closure, 2 on postoperative restraints, one on perioperative antibiotics, 6 on outpatient surgery, and 6 on postoperative feeding. Meta-analysis could be performed on dehiscence rates with postoperative feeding regimen and readmission rates after outpatient versus inpatient lip repair. There were few studies with low risk of bias. Outpatient cleft lip repair does not increase readmission (odds ratio [OR]: 0.92, 95% CI: 0.28-3.07). Allowing postoperative breastfeeding or bottle-feeding does not increase dehiscence (OR: 0.61, 95% CI: 0.19-1.95). There was no evidence of publication bias. Conclusion: Within the limitations of available data, there is no evidence of a clearly superior closure material. The evidence does not support use of postoperative arm restraints. The evidence does not support the use of preoperative nasal swabs for antibiotic guidance. With careful patient selection, outpatient cleft lip repair appears safe. The evidence supports immediate breastfeeding or bottle-feeding after cleft lip repair.

scholarly journals Association between IRF6 and 8q24 polymorphisms and nonsyndromic cleft lip with or without cleft palate: Systematic review and meta‐analysis

2016 ◽  
Vol 106 (9) ◽  
pp. 773-788 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kachin Wattanawong ◽  
Sasivimol Rattanasiri ◽  
Mark McEvoy ◽  
John Attia ◽  
Ammarin Thakkinstian
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Cleft Palate ◽  
Cleft Lip ◽  
Meta Analysis

Reading Development in Children With Nonsyndromic Cleft Palate With or Without Cleft Lip: Meta-analysis and Systematic Review

2021 ◽  
pp. 105566562110398
Author(s):  
Hope Sparks Lancaster ◽  
Kari M. Lien ◽  
Jordan Haas ◽  
Paige Ellis ◽  
Nancy J. Scherer
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Cleft Palate ◽  
Phonological Awareness ◽  
Cleft Lip ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Reading Development ◽  
Effect Sizes ◽  
School Age Children ◽  
School Age ◽  
Word Decoding

Objective We conducted a meta-analysis and systematic review of literature comparing pre-reading and general reading in school-age children with nonsyndromic cleft palate with or without cleft lip (NSCP/L) to their peers without NSCP/L. Methods Our literature search identified 1238 possible records. After screening we identified 11 samples for inclusion for systematic review and eight for meta-analysis. We compared 292 children with NSCP/L to 311 peers for 23 pre-reading effect sizes and 17 general reading effect sizes (EFg). We conducted a random-effects metaregression using robust variance estimation. Results On average school-age children with NSCP/L scored lower on pre-reading (EFg = −0.36) and general reading measures (EFg = −0.38) compared to their peers. We conducted post-hoc analyses on phonological awareness and word decoding effect sizes; children with NSCP/L performed lower on phonological awareness (EFg = −0.22) and word decoding (EFg = −0.39) compared to their peers. There was weak evidence that hearing status and/or speech-language functioning might moderate reading development. There was limited evidence that age or socioeconomic status moderated reading development. However, samples did not consistently report several characteristics that were coded for this project. Conclusions Our findings suggest that school-age children with NSCP/L have persistent reading problems. Further research is needed to explore reading development in children with NSCP/L, as well as the relationships among hearing, speech, language, and reading development.

Why do we need a systematic review in cleft lip/palate?

2019 ◽  
Vol 48 ◽  
pp. 193
Author(s):  
H.H. Sung-Hsieh ◽  
D.L. Best ◽  
C. Ulloa-Marin
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Cleft Lip ◽  
Cleft Lip Palate

scholarly journals Methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase C677T polymorphism is not associated with the risk of nonsyndromic cleft lip/palate: An updated meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Mohammad Moslem Imani ◽  
Negin Golchin ◽  
Mohsen Safaei ◽  
Farzad Rezaei ◽  
Hooshyar Abbasi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cleft Lip ◽  
Methylenetetrahydrofolate Reductase ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
C677t Polymorphism ◽  
Cleft Lip Palate

Hard Palate Repair Timing and Facial Growth in Cleft Lip and Palate: A Systematic Review

2006 ◽  
Vol 43 (5) ◽  
pp. 563-570 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yu-Fang Liao ◽  
Michael Mars
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Hard Palate ◽  
Cleft Lip ◽  
Cleft Lip And Palate ◽  
Case Reports ◽  
Case Series ◽  
Long Term Results ◽  
Facial Growth ◽  
Cleft Lip Palate ◽  
Palate Repair

Objective: To evaluate the effect of timing of hard palate repair on facial growth in patients with cleft lip and palate, with special reference to cranial base, maxilla, mandible, jaw relation, and incisor relation. Design: A systematic review. Methods: The search strategy was based on the key words “facial growth,” “cleft lip palate,” and “timing of (hard) palate repair.” Case reports, case-series, and studies with no control or comparison group in the sample were excluded. Results: Fifteen studies met the selection criteria. All the studies were retrospective and nonrandomized. Five studies used cephalometry and casts, seven used cephalometry, and three used casts. Methodological deficiencies and heterogeneity of the studies prevented major conclusions. Conclusion: The review highlights the importance of further research. Prospective well-designed, controlled studies, especially targeting long-term results, are required to elucidate the effect of timing of hard palate repair on facial growth in patients with cleft lip and palate.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document