ReviewJPRAS open2024
Velopharyngeal insufficiency after cleft palate repair in patients with isolated Robin sequence versus isolated cleft palate: A systematic review.
Review in JPRAS open, 2024. 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.
- Speech Outcomes in 5-Year-Olds Born With Cleft Palate With and Without Robin Sequence-A Swedish Registry Study.The Cleft palate-craniofacial journal : official publication of the American Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Association · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRobin sequence (RS) is characterized by micrognathia, glossoptosis, and upper airway obstruction, and is often combined with a cleft palate. It is unclear whether RS negatively impacts the development of velopharyngeal incompetence (VPI) and attainable speech outcomes. This study systematically reviewed speech outcomes in patients with cleft and isolated RS (IRS) compared with only isolated cleft palate (ICP).
methodsA literature search following the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines was performed using the PubMed and EMBASE databases. Articles reporting speech outcomes following primary palatoplasty in patients with IRS only or IRS versus ICP were identified. Study characteristics and methods, primary- and VPI palatoplasty, speech measurements, and post-operative complications were collected. Primary outcomes included VPI and need for speech correcting surgery (SCS). Methodological quality was appraised using the methodological index for non-randomized studies (MINORS) criteria (range: 0-16 and 0-24).
resultsNineteen studies reported VPI event rates that varied between 14% and 88% for IRS and 0% and 62% for ICP. Five out of 8 studies (67%) comparing VPI event rates between IRS and ICP found no significant difference. SCS rates varied between 0% and 48% for IRS and 0% and 24% for ICP. Six out of 9 studies (67%) comparing SCS rates between IRS and ICP, found no significant difference. Combined VPI event rates were 36.1% for the IRS group and 26% for the ICP group, for SCS rates this was 20% for IRS and 13% for ICP.
conclusionMost articles found no significant difference between the VPI and SCS rates indicating that speech outcomes might be similar in patients with IRS and ICP. To better compare these groups a standardized international protocol is needed.
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.