scholarly journals Embryologically Based Classification Specifies Gender Differences in the Prevalence of Orofacial Cleft Subphenotypes

2020 ◽  
Vol 58 (1) ◽  
pp. 54-60
Author(s):  
Shariselle M. W. Pool ◽  
Lisanne M. van der Lek ◽  
Kim de Jong ◽  
Christl Vermeij-Keers ◽  
Chantal M. Mouës-Vink

Background: A recently published validated classification system divides all orofacial cleft (OFC) subphenotypes into groups based on underlying developmental mechanisms, that is, fusion and differentiation, and their timing, that is, early and late periods, in embryogenesis of the primary and secondary palates. Aims: The aim of our study was to define gender differences in prevalence for all subphenotypes in newborns with OFC in the Netherlands. Methods: This was a retrospective cross-sectional study on children with OFC born from 2006 to 2016. Clefts were classified in early (E-), late (L-), and early/late (EL-) embryonic periods, in primary (P-), secondary (S-), and primary/secondary (PS-) palates, and further divided into fusion (F-), differentiation (D-), and fusion/differentiation (FD-) defects, respectively. Results: A total of 2089 OFC children were analyzed (1311 males and 778 females). Orofacial cleft subphenotypes in females occurred significantly more frequent in the L-period compared to males (66% vs 55%, P = .000), whereas clefts in males occurred significantly more in the EL-periods (40% vs 27%, P = .000). Females had significantly more S-palatal clefts (42% vs 23%, P = .000), while males had significantly more PS-palatal clefts (44% vs 30%, P = .000). Furthermore, the clefts in females were significantly more frequent the result of an F-defect (60% vs 52%, P = .000). Conclusions: Orofacial cleft in females mainly occur in the L-period are mostly S-palatal clefts, and are usually the result of an F-defect. Orofacial cleft in males more commonly occur in the EL-periods, are therefore more often combined PS-palatal clefts, and are more frequent D- and FD-defects.

Vaccine ◽  
1999 ◽  
Vol 18 (9-10) ◽  
pp. 931-940 ◽  
Author(s):  
Susan van den Hof ◽  
Guy A.M. Berbers ◽  
Hester E. de Melker ◽  
Marina A.E. Conyn-van Spaendonck

2013 ◽  
Vol 57 (3) ◽  
pp. 311-318 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yentéma Onadja ◽  
Nicole Atchessi ◽  
Bassiahi Abdramane Soura ◽  
Clémentine Rossier ◽  
Maria-Victoria Zunzunegui

BMJ Open ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (9) ◽  
pp. e021966 ◽  
Author(s):  
Federica Dellafiore ◽  
Cristina Arrigoni ◽  
Francesco Pittella ◽  
Gianluca Conte ◽  
Arianna Magon ◽  
...  

AimThe aim of this study was to critically analyse and describe gender differences related to self-care among patients with chronic heart failure (HF).Methods and resultsA monocentric real-world cohort of 346 patients with chronic HF in follow-up was used for this cross-sectional study. We report data related to the cohort’s demographic and clinical characteristics. Self-care was assessed using the Self-Care of Heart Failure Index before patients’ discharge. After bivariate analysis, logistical regression models were used to describe the relationship between gender, self-care behaviours and self-care confidence. While men were found to have more than quadruple the risk of poor self-care than women (OR 4.596; 95% CI 1.075 to 19.650), men were also found to be approximately 60% more likely to have adequate self-care confidence than women (OR 0.412; 95% CI 0.104 to 0.962). Considering that self-care confidence is described as a positive predictor of behaviours, our results suggest a paradox. It is possible that the patient–caregiver relationship mediates the effect of confidence on behaviours. Overall, adequate levels of self-care behaviours are a current issue, ranging 7.6%–18.0%.ConclusionThis study sets the stage for future research where elements of the patient–caregiver relationship ought to be considered to inform the planning of appropriate educational interventions. We recommend routinely measuring patients’ self-care behaviours to guide their follow-up and as a basis for any changes in their daily life behaviours.


2018 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Steven H. Hendriks ◽  
Marco H. Blanker ◽  
Yvonne Roelofsen ◽  
Kornelis J. J. van Hateren ◽  
Klaas H. Groenier ◽  
...  

2015 ◽  
Vol 38 (4) ◽  
pp. 368-373 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jesse E. A. Verschuren ◽  
Jan H. Geertzen ◽  
Paul Enzlin ◽  
Pieter U. Dijkstra ◽  
Rienk Dekker

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document