Salivary counts of Streptococcus mutans and Lactobacillus in patients with and without cleft lip and/or palate undergoing orthodontic treatment: A meta-analysis

Evidence Mapping and Quality Analysis of Systematic Reviews on Various Aspects Related to Cleft Lip and Palate

BACKGROUND

Management of cleft lip and palate is interdisciplinary. An evidence-mapping approach was envisaged to highlight the existing gaps in this field, using only the highest level of evidence.

OBJECTIVES

To conduct evidence mapping and quality analysis of systematic reviews and meta-analyses related to any aspect of cleft lip and palate.

SEARCH METHODS

The cleft lip and palate field was divided into 9 domains and 50 subdomains and a method of categorization of systematic reviews was established. A comprehensive search strategy was carried out in seven databases along with the search of gray literature and references of included articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Systematic reviews related to any aspect of cleft lip and palate, conducted by a minimum of two reviewers, with a comprehensive search strategy and adequate quality analysis were included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

A self-designed, pre-piloted data-extraction sheet was used to collect information that was analyzed through an expert group discussion. Quality analysis was performed using ROBIS-I, AMSTAR 2, and the PRISMA checklist.

RESULTS

A total of 144 systematic reviews published between 2008 and 2022 were included. The largest number of these could be categorized in the therapeutic domain (n = 58). A total of 27% of the studies were categorized as inconclusive, 40% as partially conclusive, and 33% as conclusive. As per ROBIS-I, 77% of reviews had high risk of bias while 58% were graded as critically low in quality as per AMSTAR 2. The majority of systematic reviews showed low reporting errors.

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of systematic reviews related to cleft lip and palate relate to therapeutic and prognostic domains and show high risk of bias and critically low quality regardless of the source journal. The results of this paper might serve as a starting point encouraging authors to carry out high-quality research where evidence is lacking.

REGISTRATION

A multidisciplinary expert-group formulated an a priori protocol, registered in Open Science Framework (DOI 10.17605/OSF.IO/NQDV2).

Current Treatment of Cleft Patients in Europe from a Provider Perspective: A Cross-Sectional Survey

The latest Eurocleft study reported several discrepancies in cleft care. Since then, no critical assessment has been performed. This study aimed to better understand the main strengths and inefficiencies of cleft care within Europe. The Google documents platform was used to create an online survey to investigate several aspects, i.e., provider characteristics, patient profile, services offered, and treatment protocols and complications. Descriptive statistics were calculated. The association between categorical variables was performed using Fisher's exact test. The significance level chosen was 0.05. A total of 69 individuals from 23 European countries completed the survey. Centralized care was the preferred system, and the majority of the countries have an association for cleft patients and professionals (53.6%). The largest percentage of patients was seen in the university hospital environment (Fisher's exact test p < 0.001). The majority of responders (98.6%) reported that an orthodontist was involved in cleft treatment, and 56.5% of them spend 76-100% of their time treating these patients. Despite cleft care having been reconfigured in Europe, a better consensus among the various centers regarding provider characteristics, services offered, and treatment protocols is still required. There is a need for better coordination between clinicians and national/international regulatory bodies.