A Review of Randomized Controlled Trials in Cleft and Craniofacial Surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study presents a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in cleft and craniofacial surgery. All studies reporting on RCTs in cleft and craniofacial surgery were identified on PubMed using the search terms "cleft," "velopharyngeal insufficiency," "velopharyngeal dysfunction," "nasoalveolar molding," "gingivoperiosteoplasty," "Pierre Robin sequence," "craniofacial," "craniosynostosis," "craniofacial microsomia," "hemifacial microsomia," "hypertelorism," "Le Fort," "monobloc," "distraction osteogenesis," "Treacher Collins," and "Goldenhar." Studies were excluded if they were not randomized, did not focus primarily on topics related to cleft or craniofacial surgery, included repeat publications of data, or were unavailable in English. Studies were evaluated on demographic and bibliometric data, study size, specific area of focus, and findings reported. Four hundred forty-seven unique studies were identified. One hundred eighty-three papers met inclusion criteria (115 cleft lip and palate, 65 craniofacial, and 3 spanning both disciplines). Sixty-six (36%) were dedicated to topics related to surgical techniques. There were no studies comparing current cleft lip or soft palate repair techniques and no studies on cleft rhinoplasty. The most frequently reported surgical topic was cleft palate. There were several studies on orthognathic techniques which compared distraction osteogenesis to traditional advancement. Most craniofacial operations, such as cranial vault remodeling and frontofacial advancement/distraction, were not represented. Several standard operations in cleft and craniofacial surgery are not supported by Level I evidence from randomized controlled trials. Our community should consider methods by which more RCTs can be performed, or redefine the acceptable standards of evidence to guide our clinical decisions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.063 | 0.221 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.013 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".