Standard

Harvard

APA

Vancouver

Author

BibTeX

@article{c82624d7a35745ad9103e555e1f3896f,
title = "Evaluating International Diagnostic, Screening, and Monitoring Practices for Craniofacial Microsomia and Microtia: A Survey Study",
abstract = "Objectives : To (1) appraise current international classification and clinical management strategies for craniofacial microsomia (CFM) and microtia, and (2) to assess agreement with the European Reference Network “European Guideline Craniofacial Microsomia” recommendations on screening and monitoring. Design : This was a cross-sectional online survey study. The survey consisted of 44 questions on demographics, diagnostics and classification, obstructive sleep apnea, feeding difficulties, speech and language development, hearing, ocular abnormalities, visual development, orthodontic screening, genetic counselling, psychological wellbeing, and extracraniofacial anomalies. Participants : Respondents were participants of 3 international cleft and craniofacial conferences, members of the American Cleft Palate and Craniofacial Association and members of the International Society for Auricular Reconstruction. Respondents were requested to complete 1 questionnaire per multidisciplinary team. Results : Fifty-seven responses were received from 30 countries (response rate ∼3%).The International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement diagnostic criteria were used by 86% of respondents, though 65% considered isolated microtia a mild form of CFM. The Orbit, Mandible, Ear, Facial Nerve and Soft Tissue classification system was used by 74% of respondents. Agreement with standardized screening and monitoring recommendations was between 61% and 97%. A majority of respondents agreed with screening for extracraniofacial anomalies (63%-68%) and with genetic counselling (81%). Conclusions : This survey did not reveal consistent agreement on the diagnostic criteria for CFM. Respondents mostly supported management recommendations, but frequently disagreed with the standardization of care. Future studies could focus on working towards international consensus on diagnostic criteria, and exploring internationally feasible management strategies.",
keywords = "clinical management, clinician survey, craniofacial microsomia, diagnostics, microtia, screening",
author = "Ronde, {Elsa M.} and Nolte, {Jitske W.} and Kruisinga, {Frea H.} and Maas, {Saskia M.} and Oren Lapid and Ebbens, {Fenna A.} and Becking, {Alfred G.} and Breugem, {Corstiaan C.}",
note = "Publisher Copyright: {\textcopyright} 2022, American Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Association.",
year = "2022",
month = apr,
day = "26",
doi = "10.1177/10556656221093912",
language = "English",
journal = "Cleft palate-craniofacial journal",
issn = "1055-6656",
publisher = "American Cleft Palate Craniofacial Association",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Evaluating International Diagnostic, Screening, and Monitoring Practices for Craniofacial Microsomia and Microtia

T2 - A Survey Study

AU - Ronde, Elsa M.

AU - Nolte, Jitske W.

AU - Kruisinga, Frea H.

AU - Maas, Saskia M.

AU - Lapid, Oren

AU - Ebbens, Fenna A.

AU - Becking, Alfred G.

AU - Breugem, Corstiaan C.

N1 - Publisher Copyright: © 2022, American Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Association.

PY - 2022/4/26

Y1 - 2022/4/26

N2 - Objectives : To (1) appraise current international classification and clinical management strategies for craniofacial microsomia (CFM) and microtia, and (2) to assess agreement with the European Reference Network “European Guideline Craniofacial Microsomia” recommendations on screening and monitoring. Design : This was a cross-sectional online survey study. The survey consisted of 44 questions on demographics, diagnostics and classification, obstructive sleep apnea, feeding difficulties, speech and language development, hearing, ocular abnormalities, visual development, orthodontic screening, genetic counselling, psychological wellbeing, and extracraniofacial anomalies. Participants : Respondents were participants of 3 international cleft and craniofacial conferences, members of the American Cleft Palate and Craniofacial Association and members of the International Society for Auricular Reconstruction. Respondents were requested to complete 1 questionnaire per multidisciplinary team. Results : Fifty-seven responses were received from 30 countries (response rate ∼3%).The International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement diagnostic criteria were used by 86% of respondents, though 65% considered isolated microtia a mild form of CFM. The Orbit, Mandible, Ear, Facial Nerve and Soft Tissue classification system was used by 74% of respondents. Agreement with standardized screening and monitoring recommendations was between 61% and 97%. A majority of respondents agreed with screening for extracraniofacial anomalies (63%-68%) and with genetic counselling (81%). Conclusions : This survey did not reveal consistent agreement on the diagnostic criteria for CFM. Respondents mostly supported management recommendations, but frequently disagreed with the standardization of care. Future studies could focus on working towards international consensus on diagnostic criteria, and exploring internationally feasible management strategies.

AB - Objectives : To (1) appraise current international classification and clinical management strategies for craniofacial microsomia (CFM) and microtia, and (2) to assess agreement with the European Reference Network “European Guideline Craniofacial Microsomia” recommendations on screening and monitoring. Design : This was a cross-sectional online survey study. The survey consisted of 44 questions on demographics, diagnostics and classification, obstructive sleep apnea, feeding difficulties, speech and language development, hearing, ocular abnormalities, visual development, orthodontic screening, genetic counselling, psychological wellbeing, and extracraniofacial anomalies. Participants : Respondents were participants of 3 international cleft and craniofacial conferences, members of the American Cleft Palate and Craniofacial Association and members of the International Society for Auricular Reconstruction. Respondents were requested to complete 1 questionnaire per multidisciplinary team. Results : Fifty-seven responses were received from 30 countries (response rate ∼3%).The International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement diagnostic criteria were used by 86% of respondents, though 65% considered isolated microtia a mild form of CFM. The Orbit, Mandible, Ear, Facial Nerve and Soft Tissue classification system was used by 74% of respondents. Agreement with standardized screening and monitoring recommendations was between 61% and 97%. A majority of respondents agreed with screening for extracraniofacial anomalies (63%-68%) and with genetic counselling (81%). Conclusions : This survey did not reveal consistent agreement on the diagnostic criteria for CFM. Respondents mostly supported management recommendations, but frequently disagreed with the standardization of care. Future studies could focus on working towards international consensus on diagnostic criteria, and exploring internationally feasible management strategies.

KW - clinical management

KW - clinician survey

KW - craniofacial microsomia

KW - diagnostics

KW - microtia

KW - screening

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85129807621&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1177/10556656221093912

DO - 10.1177/10556656221093912

M3 - Article

C2 - 35469463

JO - Cleft palate-craniofacial journal

JF - Cleft palate-craniofacial journal

SN - 1055-6656

ER -

ID: 23233727