Psychological and Peer Difficulties of Children with Cleft Lip and/or Palate: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to determine if children born with cleft lip and/or palate are at increased risk of psychological and peer difficulties, and if so, which difficulties they develop. METHODS: EMBASE, MEDLINE, and PsycINFO were searched for English language studies published between January 2005 and January 2022 which investigated the psychological outcomes and peer function of children with nonsyndromic cleft lip and palate. Outcomes included internalizing problems, such as anxiety and depression, externalizing problems, such as hyperactivity, conduct disorders, self-concept including self-image and self-esteem, peer problems, resilience, coping, and overall psychological function. A risk of bias assessment was performed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Random effects models were used in the meta-analysis to compare the outcomes for children born with a cleft and those without. RESULTS: In total 41 studies met inclusion criteria, with 9 included in the meta-analysis. Children born with a cleft appear to have similar psychological outcomes compared to normative controls when using the strengths and difficulties questionnaire. There are some minor differences between self-report and parent report, with parents generally reporting that their child with a cleft has increased emotional, conduct, and hyperactivity problems. The small differences between the study cohort and control cohorts are unlikely to imply any differences on a clinical level. CONCLUSIONS: Overall psychological outcomes appear to be similar between children born with a cleft and the nonaffected population, however, some symptoms such as anxiety and depression appear higher in children with cleft lip and/or palate.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".