ReviewCureus2025
Surgical Repair of Cleft Lip: Comparison of Neonatal and Standard Timing in a Systematic Review.
Review in Cureus, 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.
- Genetic Disorders Detectable by Fetal MRI: A Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cleft lip and palate (CLP) abnormalities are common birth defects encompassing isolated cleft lip, cleft palate, or combined CLP. Current knowledge indicates that CLP has both genetic and environmental causes, with strong associations between a positive family history and maternal factors such as smoking, alcohol consumption, teratogenic substance use, and poor nutrition. The upper lip develops as a result of the fusion of the paired medial nasal prominences to the maxillary prominences, forming the philtrum and lateral portions of the upper lip, respectively. Cleft lip, therefore, arises from a failure in those named structures to fuse. The current best treatment involves surgical repair to reconstruct the lip to restore normal appearance and function, including feeding and speech. This normally occurs around the age of six months (standard time) in most centers, but is performed much earlier, in the neonatal period, in other centers. This study aims to determine whether neonatal cleft lip repair is superior to standard time repair. Secondary aims are to determine both the feasibility and the safety of neonatal repair. Advanced literature searches were carried out using Medline ALL (1946 to date) and Embase (1974 to date); 11 articles were deemed relevant and included in this study. Aesthetic results showed excellent outcomes with neonatal repair with regard to the appearance of the scar, facial (lip and nasal) symmetry, but those aesthetic results are no better than those achieved at standard time. Although early intervention can be beneficial as early repair takes place when the cleft is less severe and when the tissues are more malleable, making the surgery less challenging, and when some aspects of fetal scar healing remain. Additionally, early repair has a positive impact on the development of the alveolar projections and can assist in reducing an alveolar cleft if present, improving the aesthetic outcome. Moreover, neonatal surgery carries with it no greater risk than surgery carried out at six months and will allow feeding to begin at an early stage, promoting recovery. Early repair also brings with it a large positive psychosocial impact, where infants and mothers can build a normal relationship from an early stage. Later in life, children and adults will be less self-conscious following good aesthetic repair. In conclusion, based on the limited available evidence, neonatal repair may be recommended over standard time repair.
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.