ArticleThe Cleft palate-craniofacial journal : official publication of the American Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Association2026
Dutch Workflow for Diagnosis and Treatment of Velopharyngeal Insufficiency in Patients with Cleft Palate-A Survey Study.
Article in The Cleft palate-craniofacial journal : official publication of the American Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Association, 2026. 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
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to investigate the workflow of cleft teams in the Netherlands with regard to the diagnosis and treatment of velopharyngeal insufficiency (VPI) in patients with cleft palate (CP).DesignThis is a cross-sectional survey study.SettingMulticenter study, tertiary hospital setting.ParticipantsEar-nose-throat surgeons, plastic surgeons and speech language pathologists of the eight cleft teams in the Netherlands.InterventionsA cross-sectional online survey was sent to the participants.Main Outcome Measure(s)The survey questions covered the following topics: diagnostic tests used to assess VPI, use of classification systems and cut-off values to determine the most optimal treatment, treatment of VPI, and postoperative follow-up.ResultsThe response rate was 88% (n = 7 cleft teams). Frequently described diagnostic tests to assess VPI include perceptual speech assessment, mirror test, nasendoscopy, oral inspection, patient-reported outcome measures, nasometry, and videofluoroscopy. Most centers reported that they did not use a classification system to determine the severity of VPI. None of the centers reported to use cut-off values based on the diagnostic tests to determine optimal treatment. The reported minimum duration of speech therapy prior to surgery varied. Many different surgical techniques were reported for the treatment of VPI. Regarding postoperative follow-up, survey responses indicate agreement on the multidisciplinary approach and diagnostic tests used. The timing of the visits varied.ConclusionFurther standardization of the diagnostic process and treatment workflow of VPI in patients with CP between Dutch cleft centers is needed in order to compare outcomes of different surgical techniques and to establish a national protocol for optimal treatment.
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.