ArticlePlastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open2019
Hand Function in Apert Syndrome.
Article in Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Early Motor Development and Rehabilitation Outcomes in Apert Syndrome: Gross Motor Function Measures-Case Report.Pathophysiology : the official journal of the International Society for Pathophysiology · 2026Article
- A longitudinal study of the role of fingers in the development of early number and arithmetic skills in children with Apert syndrome.Journal of anatomy · 2024Article
- Clinical and operative risk factors for complications after Apert hand syndactyly reconstruction.The Journal of hand surgery, European volume · 2024Article
- Syndrome-related outcomes following posterior vault distraction osteogenesis.Child's nervous system : ChNS : official journal of the International Society for Pediatric Neurosurgery · 2021Article
- Pfeiffer Syndrome: A Therapeutic Algorithm Based on a Modified Grading Scale.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe Michigan Hand Questionnaire is widely used to assess hand outcomes in congenital hand deformities. The purpose of the present study is to compare Apert syndrome hand outcomes according to Upton hand type and age stratification with age-matched unaffected controls.
methodsThe Brief Michigan Hand Questionnaire was administered to 39 Apert patients after completion of the digit separation surgical regimen, and 140 age-matched unaffected controls. Patients were divided into 3 groups according to age. In group 1 (from 4 months to 7 years of age), responses were provided by parents of Apert patients, and in group 2 (from 8 to 17 years of age), patients responded with assistance from their parents, and in group 3 (18 years of age or older), responses were provided by the patients themselves. Groups were substratified according to Upton hand type (type I, II, and III). Comparisons were made among groups, subgroups, and controls.
resultsComparisons of hand types for intragroups 1, 2, and 3, did not demonstrate any statistically significant differences (
conclusionsSimilar hand outcomes scores were achieved by all Apert patients regardless of hand type. Following completion of the digit separation regimen, Apert patients presented hand outcome scores that were lower than those of the patients in the normative control group.
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.