Cranial remolding orthosis for children with deformational skull deformities: A systematic review on the factors affecting success and duration of treatment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Deformational plagiocephaly, deformational brachycephaly, and deformational scaphocephaly are the most common types of skull deformities during the first year of life. Using a cranial remolding orthosis (CRO) can have an important role in achieving a satisfactory level of improvement in symmetry and proportion of the deformed skulls. However, there is no consensus on the most important parameters for the success or length of treatment with a CRO. In this study, we did a systematic literature review in PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and EMBASE on January 2023. Titles/abstracts of the found studies were screened by two independent reviewers. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to evaluate the quality of the included articles. The best evidence synthesis was considered to determine the strength of the reported factors. A total of 25 articles with an accumulated sample of 7594 participants were included. Nine predictive factors, including age at initiation of CRO treatment, CRO compliance, deformity severity, deformity type, torticollis, gestational age, gestational type, delivery method, and developmental delay, were considered for CRO treatment length or success. Moderate evidence suggests that CRO treatment length is linked to a patient's age at the start of treatment and the deformity severity. Moreover, treatment success is correlated with a patient's age at the start of treatment, CRO compliance, and deformity severity. Moderate evidence indicates that there is no relationship between the presence of torticollis and gestational age with CRO treatment success.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".