Systematic Review of the Long-Term Effects of Presurgical Orthopedic Devices on Patient Outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To perform a systematic review of the literature to identify the long-term effects of presurgical orthopedic (PSO) device use on patient outcomes. DESIGN: A comprehensive literature review of Embase and Ovid databases was performed to identify all English-language publications related to unilateral cleft lip and palate, presurgical devices, and patient outcomes. Studies were excluded if they did not report patient outcomes beyond 2 years of age, did not describe the use of a PSO device, were case reports (n < 10), or were purely descriptive studies. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Reported patient outcomes following the use of PSO devices. RESULTS: Following a review of all articles by 2 independent reviews, 30 articles were selected for inclusion. Overall, there was no reported consensus as to the long-term effects of PSO devices. Furthermore, this study identified that only 10% of published research controlled for confounding factors that could influence the reported results. Confounding factors that were identified included different operating surgeon, different surgical protocols, and different rates of revision surgeries. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, this systematic review identified 2 important conclusions. Firstly, there is no consensus in the literature about the long-term effects of PSO devices on long-term patient outcomes. Secondly, research in this domain is limited by confounding factors that influence the applicability of the reported results.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".