ArticlePlastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open2022
Expanding the Classic Facial Canons: Quantifying Intercanthal Distance in a Diverse Patient Population.
Article in Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Tightening of the eyelids with monopolar radiofrequency in Asians.Lasers in medical science · 2025Article
- Naso-Orbito-Ethmoid Fractures: Refining the Role of Wires and Plates.Craniomaxillofacial trauma & reconstruction · 2025Article
- African Facial Anthropometry and Spectacle Frame Design: A Review.Clinical optometry · 2025Review
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
Background: The intercanthal distance (ICD) is central to our perception of facial proportions, and it varies according to gender and ethnicity. Current standardized reference values do not reflect the diversity among patients. Therefore, the authors sought to provide an evidence-based and gender/ethnicity-specific reference when evaluating patients' ICD. Methods: As per the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, a systematic search of PubMed, Medline, and Embase was carried out for studies reporting on the ICD. Demographics, study characteristics, and ICDs were extracted from included studies. ICD values were then pooled for each ethnicity and stratified by gender. The difference between men and women, and that across ethnicities and measurement types were compared by means of independent sample Results: A total of 67 studies accounting for 22,638 patients and 118 ethnic cohorts were included in this pooled analysis. The most reported ethnicities were Middle Eastern (n = 6629) and Asian (n = 5473). ICD values (mm) in decreasing order were: African 38.5 ± 3.2, Asian 36.4 ± 1.6, Southeast Asian 32.8 ± 2.0, Hispanic 32.3 ± 2.0, White 31.4 ± 2.5, and Middle Eastern 31.2 ± 1.5. A statistically significant difference ( Conclusions: Our standards of craniofacial anthropometry must evolve from the neoclassical canons using White values as references. The values provided in this review can aid surgeons in appreciating the gender- and ethnic-specific differences in the ICD of their patients.
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.