Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23968774›Full record

ArticleArchives of disease in childhood2013

Hospital care of children with a cleft in England.

Kate J Fitzsimons, Lynn P Copley, Scott A Deacon, Jan H van der Meulen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Archives of disease in childhood, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Kate J FitzsimonsClinical Effectiveness Unit, Royal College of Surgeons of England, , London, UK.
Lynn P Copley
Scott A Deacon
Jan H van der Meulen

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo analyse hospital admissions in the first 2 years of life among children with cleft lip and/or palate in England.

designAnalysis of national administrative data of hospital admissions.

settingNational Health Service hospitals. PATIENTS: Patients born alive between 1997 and 2008 who underwent surgical cleft repair. OUTCOME MEASURES: Number of admissions, including the birth episode, and days spent in hospital were examined. Children were analysed according to cleft type and whether or not they had additional congenital anomalies.

results10 892 children were included. In their first 2 years, children without additional anomalies (n=8482) had on average 3.2 admissions and 13.2 days in hospital, which varied from 2.6 admissions and 9.2 days with cleft lip to 4.7 admissions and 19.7 days with bilateral cleft lip and palate (BCLP). Children with additional anomalies (n=2410) had on average 6.7 admissions and 51.4 days in hospital, which varied from 6.4 admissions and 48.5 days with cleft palate to 8.8 admissions and 67.5 days with BCLP. The mean number and duration of cleft-related admissions was similar in children without (1.6 admissions and 6.4 days) and in those with additional anomalies (1.5 admissions and 8.5 days). 35.2% of children without additional anomalies had at least one emergency admission, whereas the corresponding figure was 67.3% with additional anomalies.

conclusionsThe burden of hospital care in the first 2 years of life varied according to cleft type and presence of additional anomalies. However, cleft-specific hospital care did not differ between children with and without additional anomalies.

Indexed as

Cleft LipCleft PalateEnglandHospitalizationHospitalsHumansInfantInfant, NewbornLength of StayOutcome Assessment, Health CareAdministrative dataChildrenCleft lip and palateHospital admissionsLength of stay

Identifiers

PMID23968774
PMCPMC3841806

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.