Comparison of Facial Aesthetic Evaluation Given by Patients with Cleft Lip and/or Palate and Professionals: A Systematic Review.

IF 1.1 4区 医学 Q2 Dentistry
Xin Wang, Wenying Kuang, Jianan Yan, Jingyi Xu, Xinyu Zhang, Yanping Jiang, Wenjun Yuan
{"title":"Comparison of Facial Aesthetic Evaluation Given by Patients with Cleft Lip and/or Palate and Professionals: A Systematic Review.","authors":"Xin Wang, Wenying Kuang, Jianan Yan, Jingyi Xu, Xinyu Zhang, Yanping Jiang, Wenjun Yuan","doi":"10.1177/10556656241254186","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare the differences of facial aesthetic evaluation between patients with Cleft Lip and/or Palate (CL/P) and professionals for the treatment outcome of CL/P.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>This systematic review was conducted on MedLine, Web of Science, Embase and Cochrane Library databases. The Risk of Bias in Non-randomized Studies of Intervention (ROBINS-I) tool was used to evaluate the included researches.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>Not applicable.</p><p><strong>Patients, participants: </strong>Patients with CL/P and professionals.</p><p><strong>Interventions: </strong>Not applicable.</p><p><strong>Main outcome measures: </strong>The facial aesthetic evaluation of patients with CL/P and professionals.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among the 1695 literatures retrieved, 22 articles were included, including 974 patients with CL/P and 251 professionals. The bias risk assessment on 21 articles was rated \"Moderate\" and only one article was rated \"Serious\". Due to the high heterogeneity of the included studies, meta-analysis was not possible, so descriptive analysis was conducted. Among the included studies, two articles indicated similar views from both groups, 19 noted differences between the two groups, of which three articles indicated more positive evaluation by professionals and nine articles indicated more positive evaluation by patients.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The available data indicate that there is a difference between patients with CL/P and professionals in the aesthetic evaluation, but it is not clear which group is more positive. During the treatment of patients with CL/P, apart from the objective aesthetic evaluation, professionals should fully consider subjective ideas and self-assessment of patients, in order to improve the quality of life for patients.</p>","PeriodicalId":49220,"journal":{"name":"Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10556656241254186","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Dentistry","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: To compare the differences of facial aesthetic evaluation between patients with Cleft Lip and/or Palate (CL/P) and professionals for the treatment outcome of CL/P.

Design: This systematic review was conducted on MedLine, Web of Science, Embase and Cochrane Library databases. The Risk of Bias in Non-randomized Studies of Intervention (ROBINS-I) tool was used to evaluate the included researches.

Setting: Not applicable.

Patients, participants: Patients with CL/P and professionals.

Interventions: Not applicable.

Main outcome measures: The facial aesthetic evaluation of patients with CL/P and professionals.

Results: Among the 1695 literatures retrieved, 22 articles were included, including 974 patients with CL/P and 251 professionals. The bias risk assessment on 21 articles was rated "Moderate" and only one article was rated "Serious". Due to the high heterogeneity of the included studies, meta-analysis was not possible, so descriptive analysis was conducted. Among the included studies, two articles indicated similar views from both groups, 19 noted differences between the two groups, of which three articles indicated more positive evaluation by professionals and nine articles indicated more positive evaluation by patients.

Conclusions: The available data indicate that there is a difference between patients with CL/P and professionals in the aesthetic evaluation, but it is not clear which group is more positive. During the treatment of patients with CL/P, apart from the objective aesthetic evaluation, professionals should fully consider subjective ideas and self-assessment of patients, in order to improve the quality of life for patients.

唇腭裂患者与专业人士对面部美学评价的比较:系统回顾
目的比较唇裂和/或腭裂(CL/P)患者与专业人员在面部美学评估方面的差异,以了解唇裂和/或腭裂的治疗效果:本系统综述在 MedLine、Web of Science、Embase 和 Cochrane Library 数据库中进行。采用非随机干预研究中的偏倚风险(ROBINS-I)工具对纳入的研究进行评估:患者、参与者干预措施:不适用:主要结果测量主要结果测量:CL/P 患者和专业人员的面部美学评估:在检索到的 1695 篇文献中,纳入了 22 篇文章,包括 974 名 CL/P 患者和 251 名专业人员。21 篇文章的偏倚风险评估被评为 "中度",只有一篇文章被评为 "严重"。由于纳入研究的异质性较高,无法进行荟萃分析,因此进行了描述性分析。在纳入的研究中,有两篇文章指出两组人的观点相似,19 篇文章指出两组人的观点不同,其中 3 篇文章指出专业人士的评价更积极,9 篇文章指出患者的评价更积极:现有数据表明,CL/P 患者和专业人员在美学评价方面存在差异,但不清楚哪一组更积极。在对 CL/P 患者进行治疗时,除了客观的美学评价外,专业人员还应充分考虑患者的主观想法和自我评价,以提高患者的生活质量。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Journal
Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Journal DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE-SURGERY
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
36.40%
发文量
0
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Journal (CPCJ) is the premiere peer-reviewed, interdisciplinary, international journal dedicated to current research on etiology, prevention, diagnosis, and treatment in all areas pertaining to craniofacial anomalies. CPCJ reports on basic science and clinical research aimed at better elucidating the pathogenesis, pathology, and optimal methods of treatment of cleft and craniofacial anomalies. The journal strives to foster communication and cooperation among professionals from all specialties.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信