ArticleDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2023
Cleft Lip and Palate Antenatal Diagnosis: A Swiss University Center Performance Analysis.
Article in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2023. 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, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Epidemiologic trends of cleft lip and/or palate in Switzerland.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- Diagnostic Methods for the Prenatal Detection of Cleft Lip and Palate: A Systematic Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- Research on Cleft Lip and Palate: What Is New?Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Precision of cleft lip and/or palate antenatal diagnosis plays a significant role in counselling, neonatal care, surgical strategies and psychological support of the family. This study aims to measure the accuracy of antenatal diagnosis in our institution and the detection rate of cleft lip and/or palate on routine morphologic ultrasonography. In this retrospective observational study, we compared antenatal and postnatal diagnosis of 233 patients followed in our unit. We classified our patients according to the Kernahan and Stark's classification system: Group 1: facial cleft including labial and labio-maxillary clefts; Group 2: facial cleft including total, subtotal and submucous palatal clefts; Group 3: labio-maxillary-palatal clefts. Out of 233 patients, 104 were antenatally diagnosed with a facial cleft, i.e., an overall detection rate of 44.6%. The diagnosis was confirmed at birth in 65 of these patients, i.e., an overall accuracy of 62.5%. Of the 67 children (29.2%) in Group 1, the screening detection rate was 58.2% with an antenatal diagnostic accuracy of 48.7%. Of the 97 children (41.6%) in Group 2, the screening detection rate was 2% with an antenatal diagnostic accuracy of 50%. Of the 69 children (29.6%) in Group 3, the screening detection rate was 91.3% with an antenatal diagnostic accuracy of 71.4%. Our study demonstrates a relatively poor diagnostic accuracy in prenatal ultrasound, where the diagnosis was inaccurate in one third to one half of patients. It showed great variability in the screening detection rate depending on the diagnostic group observed, as well as a low rate of detection of palatal clefts.
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.