ReviewChildren (Basel, Switzerland)2023
The Use of Eye-Tracking Technology in Pediatric Orofacial Clefts: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Children (Basel, Switzerland), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Visual distractions for pediatric patients in a dental environment using eye-tracking technology: a cross-sectional study.Clinical oral investigations · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
This systematic review and meta-analysis assessed the quality of the peer-reviewed literature and evaluated the usefulness of eye-tracking technology in evaluating observers' perceptions of pediatric patients with orofacial clefts. PubMed, Science Direct, Wiley, and Web of Science were searched. Articles were screened in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis guidelines, and their methodological quality was assessed. Of the 10,254 identified studies, 12 were included. Eleven studies were cross-sectional, and one was a prospective cohort study. The main areas of interest analyzed were the eyes, nose, and mouth. Nine studies used assessment scales to analyze the link between perceived attractiveness and visualization patterns and measures. For the fixation duration outcome, six studies were eligible for inclusion in the meta-analysis. All studies reported on fixation duration in milliseconds and reported on a standard deviation. The meta-analysis demonstrated a significant difference in the measurements between the control groups and the patients with orofacial clefts. This might indicate the usefulness of eye-tracking technology as a metric for assessing the success of cleft repairs based on the perceptions of different populations. Future studies should be comprehensively reported on for comparability and reproducibility purposes.
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.