ReviewRevista cientifica odontologica (Universidad Cientifica del Sur)
[Early diagnosis of congenital craniofacial differences: a systematic review of current evidence].
Review in Revista cientifica odontologica (Universidad Cientifica del Sur). 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Craniofacial congenital differences (CCDs) impact vital functions and have psychosocial implications. Early diagnosis is crucial to optimize prognosis and quality of life. Objective: To analyze the current evidence on the early diagnosis of CCDs, identifying effective methodologies and gaps in knowledge. Materials and Methods: This systematic review was conducted following the PRISMA 2020 guidelines. The literature search included 25 studies published between January 2020 and June 2025, covering a variety of designs, such as cohort studies, diagnostic accuracy studies, and randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The consulted databases were PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, ScienceDirect, LILACS, and Cochrane Library. Study selection and data extraction were performed independently by two reviewers to ensure the reliability of the information. The methodological quality and risk of bias of the included studies were assessed using specific tools: QUADAS-2 for diagnostic accuracy studies, RoB 2.0 for RCTs, and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for cohort studies. Finally, the overall certainty of evidence was determined using the GRADE rating system. Results: Prenatal ultrasound showed 75% sensitivity and 98% specificity for cleft lip and palate. Fetal MRI achieved 90% sensitivity and 97% specificity for complex CCDs. Prenatal methods allowed for earlier diagnosis (mean 24 weeks of gestation) and facilitated clinical planning. Evidence of the long-term impact on functional/aesthetic prognosis was limited (very low GRADE). Adverse effects were minimal Conclusions: Prenatal ultrasound and fetal MRI are useful for the early diagnosis of CCDs, improving clinical management. Rigorous research is needed, especially longitudinal studies, to evaluate long-term prognosis and address global disparities.
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.