Title |
Evaluation and integration of disparate classification systems for clefts of the lip
|
---|---|
Published in |
Frontiers in Physiology, May 2014
|
DOI | 10.3389/fphys.2014.00163 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Kathie H. Wang, Carrie L. Heike, Melissa D. Clarkson, Jose L. V. Mejino, James F. Brinkley, Raymond W. Tse, Craig B. Birgfeld, David A. Fitzsimons, Timothy C. Cox |
Abstract |
Orofacial clefting is a common birth defect with wide phenotypic variability. Many systems have been developed to classify cleft patterns to facilitate diagnosis, management, surgical treatment, and research. In this review, we examine the rationale for different existing classification schemes and determine their inter-relationships, as well as strengths and deficiencies for subclassification of clefts of the lip. The various systems differ in how they describe and define attributes of cleft lip (CL) phenotypes. Application and analysis of the CL classifications reveal discrepancies that may result in errors when comparing studies that use different systems. These inconsistencies in terminology, variable levels of subclassification, and ambiguity in some descriptions may confound analyses and impede further research aimed at understanding the genetics and etiology of clefts, development of effective treatment options for patients, as well as cross-institutional comparisons of outcome measures. Identification and reconciliation of discrepancies among existing systems is the first step toward creating a common standard to allow for a more explicit interpretation that will ultimately lead to a better understanding of the causes and manifestations of phenotypic variations in clefting. |
X Demographics
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United States | 3 | 3% |
Unknown | 102 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Master | 14 | 13% |
Student > Bachelor | 14 | 13% |
Student > Ph. D. Student | 12 | 11% |
Other | 10 | 10% |
Student > Postgraduate | 9 | 9% |
Other | 23 | 22% |
Unknown | 23 | 22% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 55 | 52% |
Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 5 | 5% |
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 4 | 4% |
Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 2 | 2% |
Arts and Humanities | 2 | 2% |
Other | 9 | 9% |
Unknown | 28 | 27% |