This study clearly indicates that adolescents with cleft lip and/or palate in Sweden experience significant deficits in their educational achievements in compulsory school.

Objective :  (1) To examine the evidence for the effectiveness of differences in timing and type of speech and language therapy for children with cleft palate with or without a cleft lip and (2) to identify types of interventions assessed. Design :  Nine databases, including MEDLINE and EMBASE, were searched between inception and March 2011 to identify published articles relating to speech and language therapy for children with cleft palate with or without cleft lip. Studies that included at least 10 participants and reported outcome measures for speech and/or language measures were included. Studies where the experimental group had less than 90% of children with cleft palate with or without cleft lip were excluded. Two reviewers independently completed inclusion assessment, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment for all studies identified. Results :  A total of 17 papers were evaluated: six randomized control trials and 11 observational studies. Studies varied widely on risk of bias, intervention used, and outcome measures reported. None of the studies had a low risk of bias. In terms of intervention approaches, seven studies evaluated linguistic approaches and 10 evaluated motor approaches. Outcomes measures did not support either approach over the other, and based on data reported it was difficult to ascertain which approach is more effective for children with cleft palate with or without cleft lip. Conclusions :  The review found little evidence to support any specific intervention. Key uncertainties need to be identified and adequately powered, methodologically rigorous studies conducted to provide a secure evidence base for speech-language therapy practice in children with cleft palate with or without cleft lip.

Structured AbstractObjectivesWe describe the methodology for a major study investigating the impact of reconfigured cleft care in the United Kingdom (UK) 15 years after an initial survey, detailed in the Clinical Standards Advisory Group (CSAG) report in 1998, had informed government recommendations on centralization.Setting and Sample PopulationThis is a UK multicentre cross-sectional study of 5-year-olds born with non-syndromic unilateral cleft lip and palate. Children born between 1 April 2005 and 31 March 2007 were seen in cleft centre audit clinics.Materials and MethodsConsent was obtained for the collection of routine clinical measures (speech recordings, hearing, photographs, models, oral health, psychosocial factors) and anthropometric measures (height, weight, head circumference). The methodology for each clinical measure followed those of the earlier survey as closely as possible.ResultsWe identified 359 eligible children and recruited 268 (74.7%) to the study. Eleven separate records for each child were collected at the audit clinics. In total, 2666 (90.4%) were collected from a potential 2948 records. The response rates for the self-reported questionnaires, completed at home, were 52.6% for the Health and Lifestyle Questionnaire and 52.2% for the Satisfaction with Service Questionnaire.ConclusionsResponse rates and measures were similar to those achieved in the previous survey. There are practical, administrative and methodological challenges in repeating cross-sectional surveys 15 years apart and producing comparable data.

Structured AbstractObjectivesTo compare oral health and hearing outcomes from the Clinical Standards Advisory Group (CSAG, 1998) and the Cleft Care UK (CCUK, 2013) studies.Setting and sample populationTwo UK‐based cross‐sectional studies of 5‐year‐olds born with non‐syndromic unilateral cleft lip and palate undertaken 15 years apart. CSAG children were treated in a dispersed model of care with low‐volume operators. CCUK children were treated in a centralized, high volume operator system.Materials and methodsOral health data were collected using a standardized proforma. Hearing was assessed using pure tone audiometry and middle ear status by otoscopy and tympanometry. ENT and hearing history were collected from medical notes and parental report.ResultsOral health was assessed in 264 of 268 children (98.5%). The mean dmft was 2.3, 48% were caries free, and 44.7% had untreated caries. There was no evidence this had changed since the CSAG survey. Oral hygiene was generally good, 96% were enrolled with a dentist. Audiology was assessed in 227 of 268 children (84.7%). Forty‐three per cent of children received at least one set of grommets – a 17.6% reduction compared to CSAG. Abnormal middle ear status was apparent in 50.7% of children. There was no change in hearing levels, but more children with hearing loss were managed with hearing aids.ConclusionsOutcomes for dental caries and hearing were no better in CCUK than in CSAG, although there was reduced use of grommets and increased use of hearing aids. The service specifications and recommendations should be scrutinized and implemented.

Background:The association between smoking and breast cancer prognosis remains unclear. The purpose of this study was to investigate whether preoperative smoking was associated with prognosis in different treatment groups.Methods:This population-based cohort consisted of 1065 breast cancer patients without preoperative treatment included between 2002 and 2012 in Lund, Sweden. Smoking status was examined in relation to patient and tumour characteristics, and prognosis in different treatment groups.Results:At the preoperative visit, 21.0% smoked. Median follow-up time was 5.1 years. Overall, in the 1016 patients included in the survival analyses, there was no significant association between smoking and risk of breast cancer events (adjusted hazard ratio (adjHR): 1.45; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.95–2.20). For the 309 aromatase inhibitor (AI)-treated patients ⩾50 years with oestrogen receptor-positive (ER+) tumours, smoking was associated with risk of breast cancer events (adjHR: 2.97; 95% CI: 1.44–6.13), distant metastasis (adjHR: 4.19; 95% CI: 1.81–9.72), and death (adjHR: 3.52; 95% CI: 1.59–7.81). Smoking was not associated with breast cancer events or distant metastasis in other treatment groups.Conclusions:Preoperative smoking was only associated with an increased risk for breast cancer events and distant metastasis in AI-treated patients. If confirmed, smoking status should be taken into consideration when selecting an endocrine therapy.

Objective : To examine current provision of cleft lip and/or palate services in the U.K. and compliance with recommendations made by the Clinical Standards Advisory Group (CSAG) in 1998. Design : Cross-sectional questionnaire survey. Setting : All 11 services within the U.K. providing care for children born with a cleft lip and palate. Participants : Members from each healthcare specialty in each U.K. cleft team. Interventions : Self-administered postal questionnaires enquired about the provision of cleft services. Data were collected about the overall cleft service, team coordination, hearing, orthodontics, pediatric dentistry, primary cleft surgery, psychology, restorative dentistry, secondary surgery, specialist cleft nursing, and speech and language therapy. Results : Questionnaires were returned from members of 130/150 cleft teams (87%) and these showed that U.K. cleft services have been restructured to 11 centralized services with 17 primary operative sites and 61 peripheral sites. All services provide care through a multidisciplinary (MDT) model, but the composition of each team varies. Primary cleft surgery and orthodontics were the only specialties that were represented in all cleft teams. Specialties may be represented in a team but their attendance at MDT clinics is variable. Only one team met all of the CSAG recommendations. Conclusions : Our survey shows that cleft services have centralized over the last 10 years, and an MDT model of care has been adopted. Further research is needed to show how this has influenced outcomes and to see whether some models of centralized care are associated with better outcomes.

Structured AbstractObjectivesWe summarize and critique the methodology and outcomes from a substantial study which has investigated the impact of reconfigured cleft care in the United Kingdom (UK) 15 years after the UK government started to implement the centralization of cleft care in response to an earlier survey in 1998, the Clinical Standards Advisory Group (CSAG).Setting and Sample PopulationA UK multicentre cross-sectional study of 5-year-olds born with non-syndromic unilateral cleft lip and palate. Data were collected from children born in the UK with a unilateral cleft lip and palate between 1 April 2005 and 31 March 2007.Materials and MethodsWe discuss and contextualize the outcomes from speech recordings, hearing, photographs, models, oral health and psychosocial factors in the current study. We refer to the earlier survey and other relevant studies.ResultsWe present arguments for centralization of cleft care in healthcare systems, and we evidence this with improvements seen over a period of 15 years in the UK. We also make recommendations on how future audit and research may configure.ConclusionsOutcomes for children with a unilateral cleft lip and palate have improved after the introduction of a centralized multidisciplinary service, and other countries may benefit from this model. Predictors of early outcomes are still needed, and repeated cross-sectional studies, larger longitudinal studies and adequately powered trials are required to create a research-led evidence-based (centralized) service.

Background: Cleft lip and/or palate (CL/P) is one of the most common birth conditions in the world, but little is known about its causes. Professional opinion remains divided as to which treatments may be the most beneficial for patients with CL/P, and the factors that contribute to psychological adjustment are poorly understood. The use of different methodological approaches and tools plays a key role in hampering efforts to address discrepancies within the evidence base. A new UK-wide program of research, The Cleft Collective, was established to combat many of these methodological challenges and to address some of the key research questions important to all CL/P stakeholders.Objective: To describe the establishment of CL/P cohort studies in the United Kingdom and to consider the many opportunities this resource will generate.Results: To date, protocols have been developed and implemented within most UK cleft teams. Biological samples, environmental information, and data pertaining to parental psychological well-being and child development are being collected successfully. Recruitment is currently on track to meet the ambitious target of approximately 9800 individuals from just more than 3000 families.Conclusions: The Cleft Collective cohort studies represent a significant step forward for research in the field of CL/P. The data collected will form a comprehensive resource of information about individuals with CL/P and their families. This resource will provide the basis for many future projects and collaborations, both in the United Kingdom and around the world.