SynthesisScientific reports2020
Craniofacial morphology in down syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Scientific reports, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
24 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Efficacy of periodontal treatment modalities in Down syndrome patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Evidence-based dentistry · 2024Pooled it
- Craniofacial morphology in Apert syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Scientific reports · 2022Pooled it
- Craniofacial characteristics in Crouzon's syndrome: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Science progressPooled it
- Oral Health and Dental Management of Children With Down Syndrome: A Comprehensive Review.Cureus · 2026Review
- Facial feature removal in magnetic resonance imaging scans of adults with Down syndrome: A de-facing methodological study.Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2026Article
- Shape and Morphology of the Sella Turcica in Patients with Trisomy 21-A Systematic Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Dissecting the Genetic Contribution of Tooth Agenesis.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Review
- The role of Goldilocks protein kinase DYRK1A in embryonic development.Developmental biology · 2025Review
- Ripply3 overdosage induces mid-face shortening through Tbx1 downregulation in Down syndrome models.PLoS genetics · 2025Article
- Automated craniofacial biometry with 3D T2w fetal MRI.PLOS digital health · 2024Article
- Automated Craniofacial Biometry with 3D T2w Fetal MRI.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2024Article
- Article
- Comparison of Some Anthropometric Parameters and Blood Pressure between Adolescents with Down Syndrome and Healthy Ones.Iranian journal of public health · 2024Article
- Perspectives on managing patients with Down's syndrome among orthodontists in Saudi Arabia: A vignette and a COM-B analysis study.Journal of orthodontic science · 2024Article
- Prevalence of Malocclusions in Down Syndrome Population: A Cross-Sectional Study.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2023Article
- Population-specific facial traits and diagnosis accuracy of genetic and rare diseases in an admixed Colombian population.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Craniofacial dysmorphology in Down syndrome is caused by increased dosage of Dyrk1a and at least three other genes.Development (Cambridge, England) · 2023Article
- Vowel Production in Children and Adults With Down Syndrome: Fundamental and Formant Frequencies of the Corner Vowels.Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR · 2023Article
- Green Tea Catechins Modulate Skeletal Development with Effects Dependent on Dose, Time, and Structure in a down Syndrome Mouse Model.Nutrients · 2022Article
- A 65-Year-Old Woman with an Enlarged Tongue Due to Amyloidosis.The American journal of case reports · 2022Article
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
The aim of this study was to evaluate the craniofacial cephalometric characteristics of individuals with Down syndrome (DS), comparing them with healthy subjects. An electronic search was made in Pubmed, Embase, Lilacs, Scopus, Medline and Web of Science without imposing limitations on publication date or language. Studies were selecting following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement. The PECO acronym was applied as follows: P (population), individuals with DS; E, (exposition) diagnosis of DS; C (comparison), individuals without DS; O (outcomes) craniofacial characteristics based on cephalometric measurements. Independent reviewers performed data extraction and assessed the methodological quality of the articles using the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality-Assessment-scale. Seven case-control studies were included in meta-analysis. Given the variability of the cephalometric measurements used, only those that had been reported in at least three or more works could be included. Anterior cranial base length (SN), posterior cranial base length (SBa), total cranial base length (BaN), effective length of the maxilla (CoA), sagittal relationship between subspinale and supramentale (ANB), anterior facial height (NMe), and posterior facial height (SGo) values were significantly lower in the DS population than among control subjects. No significant differences were found in sagittal position of subspinale relative to cranial base (SNA) and sagittal position of supramentale relative to cranial base (SNB). Summarizing, individuals with DS present a shorter and flatter cranial base than the general population, an upper jaw of reduced sagittal dimension, as well as a tendency toward prognatic profile, with the medium third of the face flattened and a reduced anterior and posterior facial heights.
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.