ArticleBMJ open2025
Comparison of secondary surgery before and after centralisation of cleft services in the UK: a whole-island cross-sectional analysis.
Article in BMJ open, 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.
- Inconsistencies in Clinical Reporting of Nasopharyngoscopy for Evaluating Velopharyngeal Closure: A Multisite Study.American journal of speech-language pathology · 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveCleft lip and palate significantly impact a child's speech and facial appearance. Children undergo cleft repairs in infancy, but poor results from these initial repairs often lead to secondary surgery. In the late 1990s, cleft care provision in the UK was centralised to approximately 11 managed clinical networks or centres. This centralisation has been associated with improvements in speech and aesthetic outcomes, but little is known about the effect of centralisation on the use of secondary surgery. The purpose of this study was to compare the cumulative incidence of secondary cleft surgeries before and after centralisation and the proportion of children achieving good clinical outcomes without secondary surgery.
designRetrospective, cross-sectional. SETTING AND
participantsTwo cross-sectional studies of 5-year-old children with non-syndromic unilateral cleft lip and palate were conducted, one precentralisation and one postcentralisation. OUTCOME MEASURES: The cumulative incidence of secondary surgery from birth through age 5 was compared precentralisation and postcentralisation using Fisher's exact test, as were facial appearance and speech outcomes at age 5. Risk ratios (RR) were estimated using log-binomial multivariable regression models that adjusted for sex and age at evaluation.
resultsPostcentralisation, the proportion of children achieving good or excellent facial appearance increased from 16% to 42% (p<0.0001), good speech outcomes improved from 82% to 90% (p=0.02) and those avoiding secondary surgery rose from 45% to 67% (p<0.0001). The risk of secondary surgery decreased by 40% (RR: 0.60; 95% CI: 0.48 to 0.74), with notable reductions for secondary lip, palate and nose surgeries (RR: 0.19, 0.54 and 0.13, respectively; p<0.0001). The proportion of children achieving an ideal surgical outcome-good facial appearance, good speech and no secondary surgery-increased from 7% precentralisation to 28% postcentralisation (p=0.01; 4.1-fold increase).
conclusionsCentralisation of cleft care was associated with improved outcomes of primary lip and palate repairs and a corresponding reduction in secondary surgery.
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.