SynthesisScientific reports2022
Craniofacial morphology in Apert syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Oral Health Status in Marfan Syndrome: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of 353 Cases.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Pooled it
- Open bite malocclusion and orofacial dysfunction in patients with rare diseases.European journal of orthodontics · 2026Article
- Insight into Apert Syndrome: Reporting on Six Patients and Increasing Awareness.Molecular neurobiology · 2025Article
- Enhancing Predictive Tools for Skeletal Growth and Craniofacial Morphology in Syndromic Craniosynostosis: A Focus on Cranial Base Variables.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Cranial Bone Changes Associated With Intracranial Hypertension in Apert Syndrome: Insights for Early Surgical Intervention.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2025Article
- Serum uric acid to albumin ratio and C-reactive protein as predictive biomarkers for chronic total occlusion and coronary collateral circulation quality.Open medicine (Warsaw, Poland) · 2025Article
- From FGFR2 mutations to precision management: a review of prenatal diagnosis and multidisciplinary interventions in apert syndrome.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2025Review
- Cleft Palate in Apert Syndrome.Journal of developmental biology · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This meta-analysis aims to compare Apert syndrome (AS) patients with non-AS populations (not clinically or genetically diagnosed) on craniofacial cephalometric characteristics (CCC) to combine publicly available scientific information while also improving the validity of primary study findings. A comprehensive search was performed in the following databases: PubMed, Google Scholar, Scopus, Medline, and Web of Science, an article published between 1st January 2000 to October 17th, 2021. PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines were followed to carry out this systematic review. We used the PECO system to classify people with AS based on whether or not they had distinctive CCC compared to the non-AS population. Following are some examples of how PECO has been used: People with AS are labeled P; clinical or genetic diagnosis of AS is labeled E; individuals without AS are labeled C; CCC of AS are labeled O. Using the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality-Assessment-Scale, independent reviewers assessed the articles' methodological quality and extracted data. 13 studies were included in the systematic review. 8 out of 13 studies were score 7-8 in NOS scale, which indicated that most of the studies were medium to high qualities. Six case-control studies were analyzed for meta-analysis. Due to the wide range of variability in CCC, we were only able to include data from at least three previous studies. There was a statistically significant difference in N-S-PP (I
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.