ArticlePloS one2025
Global, regional, and national survey on burden and Quality of Care Index (QCI) of orofacial clefts: Global burden of disease systematic analysis 1990-2019.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Germany's Epidemiological Data on Cleft Lip and Palate After the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant Accident: A Systematic Literature Review.Epidemiologia (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Article
- Quantitative and Qualitative Segmental Surface Growth in Infants with Unilateral Cleft Lip and Palate: A Prospective In Vivo Study.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Article
- Comparison of Surface Strains of Polymeric Frameworks for Fixed Implant-Supported Prostheses: A Digital Image Correlation Study.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Inequalities in disease burden and care quality of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, 1990-2021: Findings from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2021.Journal of global health · 2024Article
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
backgroundOrofacial clefts are the most common craniofacial anomalies that include a variety of conditions affecting the lips and oral cavity. They remain a significant global public health challenge. Despite this, the quality of care for orofacial clefts has not been investigated at global and country levels.
objectiveWe aimed to measure the quality-of-care index (QCI) for orofacial clefts worldwide.
methodsWe used the 2019 Global Burden of Disease data to create a multifactorial index (QCI) to assess orofacial clefts globally and nationally. By utilizing data on incidence, prevalence, years of life lost, and years lived with disability, we defined four ratios to indirectly reflect the quality of healthcare. Subsequently, we conducted a principal component analysis to identify the most critical variables that could account for the observed variability. The outcome of this analysis was defined as the QCI for orofacial clefts. Following this, we tracked the QCI trends among males and females worldwide across various regions and countries, considering factors such as the socio-demographic index and World Bank classifications.
resultsGlobally, the QCI for orofacial clefts exhibited a consistent upward trend from 1990 to 2019 (66.4 to 90.2) overall and for females (82.9 to 94.3) and males (72.8 to 93.6). In the year 2019, the top five countries with the highest QCI scores were as follows: Norway (QCI = 99.9), Ireland (99.4), France (99.4), Germany (99.3), the Netherlands (99.3), and Malta (99.3). Conversely, the five countries with the lowest QCI scores on a global scale in 2019 were Somalia (59.1), Niger (67.6), Burkina Faso (72.6), Ethiopia (73.0), and Mali (74.4). Gender difference showed a converging trend from 1990 to 2019 (optimal gender disparity ratio (GDR): 123 vs. 163 countries), and the GDR showed a move toward optimization (between 0.95 and 1.05) in the better and worse parts of the world.
conclusionDespite the positive results regarding the QCI for orofacial clefts worldwide, some countries showed a slight negative trend.
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.