ArticleClinical oral investigations2021
Subjective perception of craniofacial growth asymmetries in patients with deformational plagiocephaly.
Article in Clinical oral investigations, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe present investigation aimed to evaluate the subjective perception of deformational cranial asymmetries by different observer groups and to compare these subjective perceptions with objective parameters. MATERIALS AND
methodsThe 3D datasets of ten infants with different severities of deformational plagiocephaly (DP) were presented to 203 observers, who had been subdivided into five different groups (specialists, pediatricians, medical doctors (not pediatricians), parents of infants with DP, and laypersons). The observers rated their subjective perception of the infants' cranial asymmetries using a 4-point Likert-type scale. The ratings from the observer groups were compared with one another using a multilevel modelling linear regression analysis and were correlated with four commonly used parameters to objectively quantify the cranial asymmetries.
resultsNo significant differences were found between the ratings of the specialists and those of the parents of infants with DP, but both groups provided significantly more asymmetric ratings than did pediatricians, medical doctors, or laypersons. Moreover, the subjective perception of cranial asymmetries correlated significantly with commonly used parameters for objectively quantifying cranial asymmetries.
conclusionsOur results demonstrate that different observer groups perceive the severity of cranial asymmetries differently. Pediatricians' more moderate perception of cranial asymmetries may reduce the likelihood of parents to seek therapeutic interventions for their infants. Moreover, we identified some objective symmetry-related parameters that correlated strongly with the observers' subjective perceptions. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Knowledge about these findings is important for clinicians when educating parents of infants with DP about the deformity.
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.