Observational studyThe Journal of pediatrics2018
Neurodevelopment of Infants with and without Craniofacial Microsomia.
Observational study in The Journal of pediatrics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Embarking on a Treatment Journey: Experiences of Caregivers of Young Children With Craniofacial Microsomia.The Journal of craniofacial surgery · 2025Article
- Characterizing Speech Phenotype in Individuals With Craniofacial Microsomia: A Scoping Review.American journal of speech-language pathology · 2024Article
- Psychosocial and Health-Related Experiences of Individuals With Microtia and Craniofacial Microsomia and Their Families: Narrative Review Over 2 Decades.The Cleft palate-craniofacial journal : official publication of the American Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Association · 2023Review
- Infant AFAR: Automated facial action recognition in infants.Behavior research methods · 2023Article
- Cognitive, Motor, and Language Development of Preschool Children With Craniofacial Microsomia.The Cleft palate-craniofacial journal : official publication of the American Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Association · 2021Article
- Behavioral Adjustment of Preschool Children With and Without Craniofacial Microsomia.The Cleft palate-craniofacial journal : official publication of the American Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Association · 2021Article
- Methods and Challenges in a Cohort Study of Infants and Toddlers With Craniofacial Microsomia: The Clock Study.The Cleft palate-craniofacial journal : official publication of the American Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Association · 2019Article
- Evaluation of prenatal diabetes mellitus and other risk factors for craniofacial microsomia.Birth defects research · 2019Article
- Dynamics of Face and Head Movement in Infants with and without Craniofacial Microsomia: An Automatic Approach.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2019Article
- Parental Reports of Intervention Services and Prevalence of Teasing in a Multinational Craniofacial Microsomia Pediatric Study.The Journal of craniofacial surgeryArticle
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 at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo determine whether infant cases with craniofacial microsomia (CFM) evidence poorer neurodevelopmental status than demographically similar infants without craniofacial diagnoses ("controls"), and to examine cases' neurodevelopmental outcomes by facial phenotype and hearing status. STUDY
designMulticenter, observational study of 108 cases and 84 controls aged 12-24 months. Participants were assessed by the Bayley Scales of Infant and Toddler Development-Third Edition and the Preschool Language Scales-Fifth Edition (PLS-5). Facial features were classified with the Phenotypic Assessment Tool for Craniofacial Microsomia.
resultsAfter adjustment for demographic variables, there was little difference in Bayley Scales of Infant and Toddler Development-Third Edition or Preschool Language Scales-Fifth Edition outcomes between cases and controls. Estimates of mean differences ranged from -0.23 to 1.79 corresponding to standardized effect sizes of -.02 to 0.12 (P values from .30 to .88). Outcomes were better among females and those with higher socioeconomic status. Among cases, facial phenotype and hearing status showed little to no association with outcomes. Analysis of individual test scores indicated that 21% of cases and 16% of controls were developmentally delayed (OR 0.68, 95% CI 0.29-1.61).
conclusionsAlthough learning problems have been observed in older children with CFM, we found no evidence of developmental or language delay among infants. Variation in outcomes across prior studies may reflect differences in ascertainment methods and CFM diagnostic criteria.
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.