Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38157017›Full record

SynthesisClinical oral investigations2023

Speech correcting surgery after primary palatoplasty: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis.

Lieke Hofman, Joris A van Dongen, Rosalie C M van Rees, Kevin Jenniskens, Sarah J Haverkamp, Yente S Beentjes, Aebele B Mink van der Molen, Emma C Paes

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-Analysis
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Clinical oral investigations, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Prediction of Speech-Correcting Surgery in Patients With a Cleft Palate After Primary Palatoplasty: A Logistic Regression Model.The Cleft palate-craniofacial journal : official publication of the American Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Association · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Lieke HofmanDepartment of Pediatric Plastic Surgery, Wilhelmina Children's Hospital, University Medical Center Utrecht, University of Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands. l.hofman-2@umcutrecht.nl.
Joris A van DongenDepartment of Pediatric Plastic Surgery, Wilhelmina Children's Hospital, University Medical Center Utrecht, University of Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Rosalie C M van ReesUtrecht University, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Kevin JenniskensDepartment of Epidemiology & Health Economics, Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Sarah J HaverkampSpeech and Language Therapy, Wilhelmina Children's Hospital, University Medical Center Utrecht, University of Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Yente S BeentjesUtrecht University, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Aebele B Mink van der MolenDepartment of Pediatric Plastic Surgery, Wilhelmina Children's Hospital, University Medical Center Utrecht, University of Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Emma C PaesDepartment of Pediatric Plastic Surgery, Wilhelmina Children's Hospital, University Medical Center Utrecht, University of Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Utrecht University · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesIn cleft palate patients, the soft palate is commonly closed using straight-line palatoplasty, Z-palatoplasty, or palatoplasty with buccal flaps. Currently, it is unknown which surgical technique is superior regarding speech outcomes. The aim of this review is to study the incidence of speech correcting surgery (SCS) per soft palatoplasty technique and to identify variables which are associated with this outcome. MATERIALS AND

methodsA systematic literature search was carried out according to the PRISMA guidelines. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied to focus on the incidence of SCS after soft palatoplasty. Additional variables like surgical modification, cleft morphology, syndrome, age at palatoplasty, fistula and assessment of velopharyngeal function were reported. A modified New-Ottawa Scale (NOS) was used for quality appraisal. Pooled estimates from the meta-analysis were calculated using a random-effects model.

resultsOne thousand twenty-nine studies were found of which 54 were included in the analysis. The pooled estimate proportion of SCS after straight-line palatoplasty was 19% (95% CI 15-24), after Z-palatoplasty 6% (95% CI 4-9), and after palatoplasty with buccal flaps 7% (95% CI 4-11).

conclusionsA lower SCS rate was found in patients receiving Z-palatoplasty when compared to straight-line palatoplasty. We propose a minimum set of outcome parameters which ideally should be included in future studies regarding speech outcomes after cleft palate repair. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Current literature reports highly heterogenous data regarding cleft palate repair. Our recommended set of parameters may address this inconsistency and could make intercenter comparison possible and of better quality.

Indexed as

Cleft PalatePlastic Surgery ProceduresVelopharyngeal InsufficiencyHumansInfantPalate, SoftRetrospective StudiesSpeechTreatment OutcomeCleft palateCleft palate repairPrimary palatoplastySpeech correcting surgeryVelopharyngeal insufficiency

Identifiers

PMID38157017
OpenAlexW4390406727

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.