ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2023
Evidence Mapping and Quality Analysis of Systematic Reviews on Various Aspects Related to Cleft Lip and Palate.
Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Evidence mapping and quality assessment of randomised trials related to molar incisor hypomineralisation.European archives of paediatric dentistry : official journal of the European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry · 2025Pooled it
- Effectiveness of nasoalveolar molding treatment for babies with nonsyndromic complete unilateral cleft lip, alveolus, and palate: A systematic review and meta-analysis.American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics · 2025Pooled it
- Geographical distribution and spatial autocorrelation of newborns with orofacial clefts: an epidemiological study, Paraná, 2018-2022.Epidemiologia e servicos de saude : revista do Sistema Unico de Saude do Brasil · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundManagement of cleft lip and palate is interdisciplinary. An evidence-mapping approach was envisaged to highlight the existing gaps in this field, using only the highest level of evidence.
objectivesTo conduct evidence mapping and quality analysis of systematic reviews and meta-analyses related to any aspect of cleft lip and palate. SEARCH
methodsThe cleft lip and palate field was divided into 9 domains and 50 subdomains and a method of categorization of systematic reviews was established. A comprehensive search strategy was carried out in seven databases along with the search of gray literature and references of included articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: Systematic reviews related to any aspect of cleft lip and palate, conducted by a minimum of two reviewers, with a comprehensive search strategy and adequate quality analysis were included. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: A self-designed, pre-piloted data-extraction sheet was used to collect information that was analyzed through an expert group discussion. Quality analysis was performed using ROBIS-I, AMSTAR 2, and the PRISMA checklist.
resultsA total of 144 systematic reviews published between 2008 and 2022 were included. The largest number of these could be categorized in the therapeutic domain (n = 58). A total of 27% of the studies were categorized as inconclusive, 40% as partially conclusive, and 33% as conclusive. As per ROBIS-I, 77% of reviews had high risk of bias while 58% were graded as critically low in quality as per AMSTAR 2. The majority of systematic reviews showed low reporting errors.
conclusionsThe majority of systematic reviews related to cleft lip and palate relate to therapeutic and prognostic domains and show high risk of bias and critically low quality regardless of the source journal. The results of this paper might serve as a starting point encouraging authors to carry out high-quality research where evidence is lacking. REGISTRATION: A multidisciplinary expert-group formulated an a priori protocol, registered in Open Science Framework (DOI 10.17605/OSF.IO/NQDV2).
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.