Cosmetic satisfaction and patient-reported outcomes following surgical treatment of single-suture craniosynostosis: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study provides a systematic review on cosmetic satisfaction and other patient-reported outcomes (PROMs) of patients who underwent surgical treatment of SSC. METHODS: A systematic review of all articles published from inception to 1 June 2022 was performed. Articles were included if they reported on subjective assessment of cosmetic satisfaction or other PROMs by patients or their families using questionnaires or interviews. RESULTS: Twelve articles, describing 724 surgical treatments of SSC, met the inclusion criteria. Cosmetic satisfaction was evaluated in the following ways: 1) use of the VAS score, binary questions or a 5-point scale to rate general, facial or skull appearance; 2) use of an aesthetic outcome staging in which personal opinion was added to the treating surgeon's opinion; and 3) use of an evaluation of anatomical proportions of the skull and face. A trend towards an overall improvement in cosmetic satisfaction following surgical treatment of SSC was observed. Reported PROMs included general health, socioeconomic status, patients' and their families' rating of the normalcy and noticeability of their appearance and how much this bothered them, and patients' answers to the Youth Quality of Life with Facial Differences (YQOL-FD) questionnaire. No clear overall trend of the reported PROMs was identified. CONCLUSION: This systematic review illuminates that there is a wide variation in outcomes for evaluating cosmetic satisfaction and other PROMs of patients who underwent surgical treatment of SSC, suggesting that further research is needed to develop an inclusive and uniform approach to assess these outcomes.
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 | 0.006 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".