ReviewFrontiers in physiology2014
Evaluation and integration of disparate classification systems for clefts of the lip.
Review in Frontiers in physiology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
19 citing papers in PubMed.
- Gene expression dynamics of human and mouse craniofacial development at the single-cell level.Nature communications · 2026Article
- Gaps in public health surveillance of elective surgery: a national analysis of inpatient data, COVID-19 impact, and coding validity in Germany (2006-2023).Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Gene expression patterns of the developing human face at single cell resolution reveal cell type contributions to normal facial variation and disease risk.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
- Epidemiologic trends of cleft lip and/or palate in Switzerland.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- Dental rehabilitation of cleft palate patients using zygomatic implants: A case report.SAGE open medical case reports · 2025Article
- Quantifying Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Engagement in the Evolution of ICD-10 Codes.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2024Article
- Characteristics of Factors Influencing the Occurrence of Cleft Lip and/or Palate: A Case Analysis and Literature Review.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Higher risk of respiratory infections and otitis media in cleft lip and/or palate patients: the Japan Environment and Children's Study.Environmental health and preventive medicine · 2024Article
- Characterization of SHH, SOX3, WNT3A and WNT9B Proteins in Human Non-Syndromic Cleft Lip and Palate Tissue.Dentistry journal · 2023Article
- Classification Systems of Cleft Lip, Alveolus and Palate: Results of an International Survey.The Cleft palate-craniofacial journal : official publication of the American Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Association · 2023Article
- Lobar holoprosencephaly with craniofacial defects in a Friesian calf: A case report.Veterinary medicine and science · 2020Article
- An automatic approach for classification and categorisation of lip morphological traits.PloS one · 2019Article
- The Incisive Canal: A Comprehensive Review.Cureus · 2018Review
- Face morphogenesis is promoted by Pbx-dependent EMT via regulation ofDevelopment (Cambridge, England) · 2018Article
- Full Spectrum of Postnatal Tooth Phenotypes in a Novel Irf6 Cleft Lip Model.Journal of dental research · 2016Article
- The FaceBase Consortium: a comprehensive resource for craniofacial researchers.Development (Cambridge, England) · 2016Article
- Phenotypic classification of variability of non-syndromic congenital cleft lip and jaw in Vorderwald × Montbéliarde cattle.Acta veterinaria Scandinavica · 2015Article
- The Roles of Hedgehog Signaling in Upper Lip Formation.BioMed research international · 2015Review
- Computer processable classification of craniofacial clefts.Frontiers in physiology · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Orofacial clefting is a common birth defect with wide phenotypic variability. Many systems have been developed to classify cleft patterns to facilitate diagnosis, management, surgical treatment, and research. In this review, we examine the rationale for different existing classification schemes and determine their inter-relationships, as well as strengths and deficiencies for subclassification of clefts of the lip. The various systems differ in how they describe and define attributes of cleft lip (CL) phenotypes. Application and analysis of the CL classifications reveal discrepancies that may result in errors when comparing studies that use different systems. These inconsistencies in terminology, variable levels of subclassification, and ambiguity in some descriptions may confound analyses and impede further research aimed at understanding the genetics and etiology of clefts, development of effective treatment options for patients, as well as cross-institutional comparisons of outcome measures. Identification and reconciliation of discrepancies among existing systems is the first step toward creating a common standard to allow for a more explicit interpretation that will ultimately lead to a better understanding of the causes and manifestations of phenotypic variations in clefting.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.