ArticlePlastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open2025
Evolution of Cleft Lip and Palate Surgery and the Pursuit for Consensus on Standardized Algorithms of Care.
Article in Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cleft lip and palate (CLP) surgery has evolved over centuries in an attempt to achieve anatomical closure while optimizing speech and limiting fistulas and midface hypoplasia. Masters of cleft surgery and early pioneers inspired generations of surgical innovators to refine techniques and timing to improve surgical outcomes. Constant modification has resulted in significant diversity of cleft surgical protocols across institutions. Unlike many other surgical conditions, there is no gold-standard algorithm of care for CLP. Several international consortiums, including Eurocleft, Americleft, and Scandcleft, aimed to investigate the ideal cleft care protocol. Despite the inclusion of multiple institutions and attempts at long-term follow-up, these studies were limited by small sample sizes, lack of diversity in patient population, poor long-term follow-up, lack of standardized measurement tools, and inability to control for confounders such as severity. This article aimed to present the findings of these early pioneer consortiums in their pursuit for the optimal CLP surgical protocol and recommend a direction for future research with a global consortium of experts in cleft care.
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.