ArticleThe Cleft palate-craniofacial journal : official publication of the American Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Association2023
Classification Systems of Cleft Lip, Alveolus and Palate: Results of an International Survey.
Article in The Cleft palate-craniofacial journal : official publication of the American Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Association, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 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
15 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Comprehensive Review of the Genetic Etiology and Management of Orofacial Clefts.Pediatric discovery · 2026Review
- Quality of life in patients with craniofacial anomalies: personal experience and review of literature.Medicine and pharmacy reports · 2026Article
- Etiology of Cleft Lip and/or Cleft Palate in Southeastern Poland Based on Current Observational Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- A digital workflow for designing and fabricating a split negative mold of obturator for patients with palatal defects.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2025Article
- Epidemiologic trends of cleft lip and/or palate in Switzerland.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- Are YouTube™ and TikTok™ videos useful as educational tool for patients with cleft lip and palate?Dental press journal of orthodontics · 2025Article
- Quantifying Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Engagement in the Evolution of ICD-10 Codes.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2024Article
- Efficacy of modified anterior maxillary segmental distraction osteogenesis based on 3D visualisation for the treatment of maxillary hypoplasia among adolescents with cleft lip and palate.BMC oral health · 2024Article
- Assessment of non-syndromic orofacial cleft severity and associated environmental factors in Saudi Arabia: A cross-sectional study.The Saudi dental journal · 2024Article
- Article
- Orofacial clefts alter early life oral microbiome maturation towards higher levels of potentially pathogenic species: A prospective observational study.Journal of oral microbiology · 2023Article
- Modifiable Risk Factors of Non-Syndromic Orofacial Clefts: A Systematic Review.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Mutation of the MYH3 gene causes recessive cleft palate in Limousine cattle.Genetics, selection, evolution : GSE · 2022Article
- Immunohistochemical Evaluation of BARX1, DLX4, FOXE1, HOXB3, and MSX2 in Nonsyndromic Cleft Affected Tissue.Acta medica Lituanic · 2022Article
- De Novo Missense Variant in Bovine WDR33 Associated With a Complex Syndromic Form of Cleft Palate With Pentalogy of Fallot and Internal Hydrocephalus.Journal of veterinary internal medicineArticle
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study aimed to identify commonly used classification systems by cleft providers around the world, including the perceived indications and limitations of each system.
designA cross-sectional survey.
participantsA total of 197 registrants from three international cleft/craniofacial meetings.
interventionsParticipants were sent a web-based questionnaire concerning cleft classification systems.
main outcome measuresFrequency of commonly used classification systems, their perceived indications and limitations.
resultsA total of 197 respondents from 166 different centers completed the questionnaire. Healthcare professionals from all disciplines responded, with the most frequent respondents being plastic surgeons (38.1%), maxillofacial surgeons (28.4%) and orthodontists (23.9%). Eighteen different classification systems were in use. The most frequently used systems were the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD-10) (35.5%), LAHSHAL (34.0%), and Veau (32.5%) classification systems. Most respondents (32.5%) indicated that anatomical and morphological characteristics are essential components of a classification system. However, respondents indicated that their current classification systems lacked sufficient description of cleft extension and severity.
conclusionsGreat variety in the use of classification systems exists among craniofacial specialists internationally. The results recommend the usage of the LAHSHAL classification of OFCs, due to its comprehensiveness, relatively high implementation rate globally, convenience of usage and complementarity with the ICD-10 system. Moreover, it can overcome deficiencies inextricably linked to ICD-10, such as incapacity to describe laterality and clefts of the alveolus. More international exposure to the merits of using the LAHSHAL classification system would be highly recommended.
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.