The Cleft palate-craniofacial journal : official publication of the American Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Association · 2016
Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Birth Prevalence of Orofacial Clefts in Low- and Middle-Income Countries.
СтатьяМетаанализСистематический обзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Kadir Ayesha, Mossey Peter A, Blencowe Hannah, Moorthie Sowmiya, Lawn Joy E, Mastroiacovo Pierpaolo, Modell Bernadette
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: In the last comprehensive review of the literature published in 2002, little information on the prevalence of orofacial clefts was available from low- and middle-income countries (LMICs).
OBJECTIVE: To analyze published data on the birth prevalence of cleft lip and/or palate (CL/P) from LMIC.
DESIGN: Systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis of data from original papers on the birth prevalence of cleft lip and/or cleft palate (CL/P) in LMICs between 1990 and 2014. Secondary inclusion criteria were developed to analyze lower-quality studies from countries with scarce data.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Birth prevalence of undifferentiated CL/P (with or without associated syndrome or other anomaly).
RESULTS: Twenty-eight studies met strict inclusion criteria. Among 31,475,278 total births, the pooled birth prevalence of undifferentiated CL/P was 1.38 per 1000 births (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.20 to 1.56). Four studies met criteria for secondary analysis, providing data on 75,627 births, with a pooled prevalence of 0.75 CL/P cases per 1000 births (95% CI: 0.56 to 0.95). Comparison of studies was limited by variable definitions of cases and of the reference population and by inconsistent reporting of outcomes. There is significant heterogeneity in the findings.
CONCLUSIONS: In LMICs, approximately 1 in every 730 children is born with CL/P. To optimize comparability across settings, future research should use a standard classification system and standard criteria for data collection and presentation. As clefting is associated with deprivation, understanding the true scale, risks, and preventive measures for orofacial clefts in LMIC is a matter of both scientific and humanitarian importance.
OBJECTIVE: To analyze published data on the birth prevalence of cleft lip and/or palate (CL/P) from LMIC.
DESIGN: Systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis of data from original papers on the birth prevalence of cleft lip and/or cleft palate (CL/P) in LMICs between 1990 and 2014. Secondary inclusion criteria were developed to analyze lower-quality studies from countries with scarce data.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Birth prevalence of undifferentiated CL/P (with or without associated syndrome or other anomaly).
RESULTS: Twenty-eight studies met strict inclusion criteria. Among 31,475,278 total births, the pooled birth prevalence of undifferentiated CL/P was 1.38 per 1000 births (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.20 to 1.56). Four studies met criteria for secondary analysis, providing data on 75,627 births, with a pooled prevalence of 0.75 CL/P cases per 1000 births (95% CI: 0.56 to 0.95). Comparison of studies was limited by variable definitions of cases and of the reference population and by inconsistent reporting of outcomes. There is significant heterogeneity in the findings.
CONCLUSIONS: In LMICs, approximately 1 in every 730 children is born with CL/P. To optimize comparability across settings, future research should use a standard classification system and standard criteria for data collection and presentation. As clefting is associated with deprivation, understanding the true scale, risks, and preventive measures for orofacial clefts in LMIC is a matter of both scientific and humanitarian importance.