ArticleArchives of plastic surgery2025
The Effectiveness of Nasal Conformers in Patients with Unilateral Cleft Lip and Palate Following Primary Cheiloplasty: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Article in Archives of plastic surgery, 2025. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of nasal conformers in patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate (UCLP) following primary cheiloplasty. Methods: We conducted a comprehensive search in PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Clinical Trials (CENTRAL), and EBSCO Open Dissertation from inception to November 2023. We included three retrospective and one prospective cohort studies evaluating the effect of postoperative nasal conformers after primary cheiloplasty. Data extraction and risk of bias assessment were performed using the Risk of Bias in Non-Randomized Studies of Intervention (ROBINS-I) tool. A meta-analysis was conducted using a random-effects model to pool data and determine overall effect sizes with a 95% confidence interval (CI). The mean difference (MD) was calculated for nostril height and nostril width outcomes. The study was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42024511395). Results: The four included studies represented 83 treated patients and 84 controls. The overall quality of studies was moderate, as assessed by the ROBINS-I tool. Meta-analysis results showed that nostril width was wider on the cleft side compared with controls (MD = 1.10; 95% CI: 0.64, 1.56), while nostril height was lower on the cleft side (MD = -0.73; 95% CI: -1.20, -0.26). Ratios for nostril width and nostril height were generally closer to symmetry. Conclusion: This study suggests that nasal conformers may improve nasal symmetry in patients with UCLP following primary cheiloplasty. Further research, including randomized controlled trials and long-term follow-up studies, is needed to confirm these findings and refine the use of nasal conformers in clinical practice.
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.