Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2023-9
Psychosocial and Health-Related Experiences of Individuals With Microtia and Craniofacial Microsomia and Their Families: Narrative Review Over 2 Decades
This paper describes 20 years of microtia and craniofacial microsomia (CFM) psychosocial and healthcare studies and suggests directions for clinical care and research.
Design:
A narrative review of papers January 2000 to July 2021 related to psychosocial and healthcare experiences of individuals with microtia and CFM and their families.
Results:
Studies (N = 64) were mainly cross-sectional (69%), included a range of standardized measures (64%), and were with European (31%), American (27%), or multinational (23%) samples. Data were generally collected from both patients and caregivers (38%) or patient self-report (35%). Sample sizes were 11 to 25 (21%), 26 to 50 (19%), 51 to 100 (22%), or over 100 (38%). Studies addressed 5 primary topics: (1) Healthcare Experiences, including Medical Care, Hearing Loss/Amplification, Diagnostic Experiences, and Information Preferences; (2) Psychosocial Experiences, including Teasing, Behavioral Adjustment, Psychosocial Support, and Public Perception; (3) Neurocognitive Functioning and Academic Assistance; (4) Pre- and Post-Operative Psychosocial Outcomes of Ear Reconstruction/Canaloplasty; and (5) Quality of Life and Patient Satisfaction.
Conclusions:
Care involved multiple specialties and was often experienced as stressful starting at diagnosis. Psychosocial and neurocognitive functioning were generally in the average range, with possible risk for social and language concerns. Coping and resiliency were described into adulthood. Satisfaction and positive benefit of ear reconstruction/canaloplasty were high. Care recommendations include increasing: hearing amplification use, microtia and CFM knowledge among providers, efficient treatment coordination, psychosocial support, academic assistance, and advances to minimize surgical scarring. This broad literature overview informs clinical practice and research to improve psychosocial outcomes.
HeikeCLHingAVAspinallCA, Bartlett SP, Birgfeld CB, Drake AF, Pimenta LA, Sie KC, Urata MM, Vivaldi D, et al. Clinical care in craniofacial microsomia: a review of current management recommendations and opportunities to advance research. Am J Med Genet C Semin Med Genet. 2013;163C(4):271‐282.
2.
PaulMAOruchałJKnakiewiczMJaremkówPBajtekJChrapustaA. Hemifacial microsomia review: recent advancements in understanding the disease. J Craniofac Surg. 2020;31(8):2123‐2127.
KeoghIJTroulisMJMonroyAAEaveyRDKabanLB. Isolated microtia as a marker for unsuspected hemifacial microsomia. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2007;133(10):997‐1001.
5.
RenkemaRW, ERN CRANIO Working Group on Craniofacial Microsomia. European Guideline craniofacial microsomia. J Craniofac Surg. 2020;31(Suppl 8):2385‐2484.
6.
JovicTHStewartKKonMWhitakerIS. Auricular reconstruction: a sociocultural, surgical and scientific perspective. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2020;73(8):1424‐1433.
7.
HumphriesSJoshiAWebbWMKanegaonkarR. Auricular reconstruction: where are we now? A critical literature review. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2022;279(2):541‐556.
8.
RobertsRMShuteR. Children’s experience of living with a craniofacial condition: perspectives of children and parents. Clin Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2011;16(3):317‐334.
MazeedASSaiedSAbulezzTYoussefGBulstrodeNW. Recommendations for the development and reform of microtia and atresia services. J Craniofac Surg. 2019;30(4):1135‐1139.
Dixon-WoodsMFitzpatrickRRobertsK. Including qualitative research in systematic reviews: opportunities and problems. J Eval Clin Pract. 2001;7(2):125‐133.
13.
BaethgeCGoldbeck-WoodSMertensS. SANRA—A scale for the quality assessment of narrative review articles. Res Integr Peer Rev. 2019;4:5.
14.
HamiltonKVOrmondKEMoscarelloT, Bruce JS, Bereknyei Merrell S, Chang KW, Bernstein JA.Exploring the medical and psychosocial concerns of adolescents and young adults with craniofacial microsomia. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2018;55(10):1430‐1439.
15.
HamletCHarcourtD. Exploring the experiences of adults with microtia: a qualitative study. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2020;57(10):1230‐1237.
16.
JensenDRGramesLMLieuJE. Effects of aural atresia on speech development and learning: retrospective analysis from a multidisciplinary craniofacial clinic. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2013;139(8):797‐802.
17.
JohnsALImDDLewinSL. Early familial experiences with microtia: psychosocial implications for pediatric providers. Clin Pediatr (Phila). 2018;57(7):775‐782.
18.
JohnsALLuquettiDVBrajcichMRHeikeCLStockNM. In their own words: caregiver and patient perspectives on stressors, resources, and recommendations in craniofacial microsomia care. J Craniofac Surg. 2018;29(8):2198‐2205.
19.
JohnsALWallaceERCollettBR, et al. Behavioral adjustment of preschool children with and without craniofacial microsomia. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2021;58(1):42‐53.
20.
KancherlaVRomittiPADamianoPCDruschelCMRobbinsJM. Maternal reports of satisfaction with care and outcomes for children with microtia. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2009;123(4):149e‐150e.
21.
KesserBWKrookKGrayLC. Impact of unilateral conductive hearing loss due to aural atresia on academic performance in children. Laryngoscope. 2013;123(9):2270‐2275.
22.
LuquettiDVBrajcichMRStockNMHeikeCLJohnsAL. Healthcare and psychosocial experiences of individuals with craniofacial microsomia: patient and caregivers perspectives. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2018;107:164‐175.
23.
LuquettiDVSpeltzMLWallaceER, Siebold B, Collett BR, Drake AF, Johns AL, Kapp-Simon KA, Kinter SL, Leroux BG, et al. Methods and challenges in a cohort study of infants and toddlers with craniofacial microsomia: the CLOCK study. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2019;56(7):877‐889.
24.
MandelbaumRSVolpicelliEJMartinsDB, Park SH, Dubina E, Ishiyama A, Bradley JP, Lee JC. Evaluation of 4 outcomes measures in microtia treatment: exposures, infections, aesthetics, and psychosocial ramifications. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2017;5(9):e1460.
25.
MyhreARabuMFeragenKJB. The need to belong: subjective experiences of living with a craniofacial conditions and undergoing appearance-altering surgery. Body Image. 2021;38:334‐345.
26.
OttoIASimoneAMaldaJKonMBreugemCC. Engaging stakeholders in bioprinting research: views and concerns of microtia patients’ parents on bioprinted auricular cartilage. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2020;73(12):2239‐2260.
27.
ReedRHubbardMKesserBW. Is there a right ear advantage in congenital aural atresia?Otol Neurotol. 2016;37(10):1577‐1582.
28.
van Hövell Tot WesterflierCVAStegemanIMuradinMSMSmitALBreugemCC. Parental preferences for the first consultation for microtia. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2018;106:10‐15.
29.
SpeltzMLKapp-SimonKAJohnsAL, Wallace ER, Collett BR, Magee L, Leroux BG, Luquetti DV, Heike, CL. Neurodevelopment of infants with and without craniofacial microsomia. J Pediatr. 2018;198:226‐233.
30.
CollettBRWallaceERKapp-SimonKA, Johns AL, Drake AF, Heike CL, Kinter S, Luquetti DV, Magee L, Norton S, et al. Cognitive, motor, and language development of preschool children with craniofacial microsomia. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2021;58(9):1169‐1177.
31.
KaelinVCWallaceERWerlerMMCollettBRRosenbergJKhetaniMA. Caregiver perspectives on school participation among students with craniofacial microsomia. Am J Occup Ther. 2021;75(2):7502205100p1‐7502205100p10.
32.
SpeltzMLWallaceERCollettBRHeikeCLLuquettiDVWerlerMM. Intelligence and academic achievement of adolescents with craniofacial microsomia. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017;140(3):571‐580.
33.
CollettBRChapmanKWallaceER, Kinter SL, Heike CL, Speltz ML, Werler M. Speech, language, and communication skills of adolescents with craniofacial microsomia. Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 2019;28(4):1571‐1581.
34.
DuftonLMSpeltzMLKellyJPLerouxBCollettBRWerlerMM. Psychosocial outcomes in children with hemifacial microsomia. J Pediatr Psychol. 2011;36(7):794‐805.
35.
FanWSMullikenJBPadwaBL. An association between hemifacial microsomia and facial clefting. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2005;63(3):330‐334.
36.
Cho LieuJE. Speech-language and educational consequences of unilateral hearing loss in children. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2004;130(5):524‐530.
37.
KupplerKLewisMEvansAK. A review of unilateral hearing loss and academic performance: is it time to reassess traditional dogmata?Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2013;77(5):617‐622.
38.
JohnsALLuquettiDVHeikeCL, Drake AF, Duenas Roque MM, Hurtado-Villa P, Pachajoa H, Porras-Hurtado GL, Zarante I, Magee L. Parental reports of intervention services and prevalence of teasing in a multinational craniofacial microsomia pediatric study. J Craniofac Surg. 2021;32(8):2687‐2691.
39.
HylandAArnottWLRushbrookeECheadleS. Outcomes for school-aged children with aural atresia. J Deaf Stud Deaf Educ. 2020;25(4):411‐420.
40.
JiameiDJiakeCHongxingZWanhouGYanWGaifenL. An investigation of psychological profiles and risk factors in congenital microtia patients. J Plast Reconst Aesthet Surg. 2008;61(Suppl 1):S37‐S43.
41.
AlmadaniYHGilardinoMS. Cost-effectiveness analysis, psychosocial, and utility outcomes of early mandibular distraction in craniofacial microsomia. J Craniofac Surg. 2020;31(7):1888‐1894.
42.
ByunSHongPBezuhlyM. Public perception of the burden of microtia. J Craniofac Surg. 2016;27(7):1665‐1669.
43.
CollettBRSpeltzMLCloonanYKLerouxBGKellyJPWerlerMM. Neurodevelopmental outcomes in children with hemifacial microsomia. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2011;165(2):134‐140.
44.
FanYNiuXChenYPingLYangTChenX. Long-term evaluation of development in patients with bilateral microtia using softband bone conducted hearing devices. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2020;138:110367.
45.
JohanssonMGillbergCRastamM. Autism spectrum conditions in individuals with mobius sequence, CHARGE syndrome and oculo-auriculo-vertebral spectrum: diagnostic aspects. Res Dev Disabil. 2010;31(1):9‐24.
46.
KaelinVCWallaceERWerlerMMCollettBRKhetaniMA. Community participation in youth with craniofacial microsomia. Disabil Rehabil. 2022;44(2):253‐260.
47.
LiDChinWWuJ, Zhang Q, Xu F, Xu Z, Zhang R. Psychosocial outcomes among microtia patients of different ages and genders before ear reconstruction. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2010;34(5):570‐576.
48.
NuyenBAKandathilCKSaltychevMFirminFMostSPTruongMT. The social perception of microtia and auricular reconstruction. Laryngoscope. 2021;131(1):195‐200.
49.
OngkosuwitoEvan der VliesLKraaijV, Garnefski N, van Neck H, Kuijpers-Jagtman AM, Hovius S. Stress in parents of a child with hemifacial microsomia: the role of child characteristics and parental coping strategies. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2018;55(7):959‐965.
50.
SepehripourSMcDermottALLloydMS. Microtia and social media: patient versus physician perspective of quality of information. J Craniofac Surg. 2017;28(3):643‐645.
51.
SmitALBurgersYRWSwanenburg de VeyeHFNStegemanIBreugemCC. Hearing-related quality of life, developmental outcomes and performance in children and young adults with unilateral conductive hearing loss due to aural atresia. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2021;142:110590.
52.
SnyderHPopeAW. Psychosocial adjustment in children and adolescents with a craniofacial anomaly: diagnosis-specific patterns. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2010;47(3):264‐272.
53.
UmbaughHMCrerandCEStockNM, Luquetti DV, Heike CL, Drake AF, Billaud Feragen KJ, Johns AL. Microtia and craniofacial microsomia: content analysis of Facebook groups. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2020;138:110301.
54.
WallaceERCollettBRHeikeCLWerlerMMSpeltzML. Behavioral-social adjustment of adolescents with craniofacial microsomia. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2018;55(5):664‐675.
55.
JohnsALLewinSLImDD. Teasing in younger and older children with microtia before and after ear reconstruction. J Plast Surg Hand Surg. 2017;51(3):205‐209.
56.
HorlockNVogelinEBradburyETGrobbelaarAOGaultDT. Psychosocial outcome of patients after ear reconstruction: a retrospective study of 62 patients. Ann Plast Surg. 2005;54(5):517‐524.
57.
AchenbachTMRescorolaLA. Manual for the ASEBA school-age forms & profiles. 2001.
58.
HammalZCohnJFWallaceER, Heike CL, Birgfeld CB, Oster H, Speltz ML. Facial expressiveness in infants with and without craniofacial microsomia: preliminary findings. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2018;55(5):711‐720.
59.
HammalZWallaceERSpeltzML, Heike CL, Birgfeld CB, Cohn JF. Dynamics of face and head movement in infants with and without craniofacial microsomia: an automatic approach. Plast Resconstr Surg Glob Open. 2019;7(1):e2081.
60.
WerlerMMSheehanJEHayesCMitchellAAMullikenJB. Vasoactive exposures, vascular events, and hemifacial microsomia. Birth Defects Res A Clin Mol Teratol. 2004;70(6);389‐395.
61.
SteffenAKlaiberSKatzbachRNitschSKönigIRFrenzelH. The psychosocial consequences of reconstruction of severe ear defects or third-degree microtia with rib cartilage. Aesthet Surg J. 2008;28(4):404‐411.
62.
AwanBASamargandiOAAldaqualSMSehloMG. Life satisfaction and quality of life in adolescents with severe microtia: the effect of improved body image disturbance after ear reconstruction with costal cartilage. Middle East Curr Psychiatry. 2018;25(2):84‐90.
63.
ChoYSSonSEKangMW. Evaluation of appearance-related distress after canaloplasty using the DAS-24 questionnaire. Acta Otolaryngol. 2020;140(1):27‐31.
64.
HempelJMKnoblDBerghausABraunT. Prospective assessment of quality of life after auricular reconstruction with porous polyethylene. HNO. 2014;62(8):564‐569.
65.
JohnsALLucashREImDDLewinSL. Pre and post-operative psychological functioning in younger and older children with microtia. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2015;68(4):492‐497.
66.
SteffenAWollenbergBKönigIRFrenzelH. A prospective evaluation of psychosocial outcomes following ear reconstruction with rib cartilage in microtia. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2010;63(9):1466‐1473.
67.
VarniJWSeidMKnightTSUzarkKSzerIS. The PedsQL 4.0 generic core scales: sensitivity, responsiveness, and impact on clinical decision-making. J Behav Med. 2002;25(2):175‐193.
68.
KhetaniMACollettBRSpeltzMLWerlerMM. Health-related quality of life in children with hemifacial microsomia: parent and child perspectives. J Dev Behav Pediatr. 2013;34(9):661‐668.
69.
UmanskyAMJeffeDBLieuJEC. The HEAR-QL: quality of life questionnaire for children with hearing loss. J Am Acad Audiol. 2011;22(10):644‐653.
SoukupBMashhadiSABulstrodeNW. Health-related quality-of-life assessment and surgical outcomes for auricular reconstruction using autologous costal cartilage. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2012;129(3):632‐640.
72.
BradfordPSAkinosunMDanielsonKKMonsonRSMorrisDRosenbergJ. Child and caregiver perspectives toward facial appearance in children with microtia with or without craniofacial microsomia using a newly developed Likert scale. J Craniofac Surg. 2020;31(6):1583‐1587.
73.
BraunTGratzaSBeckerS, Schwentner I, Stelter K, Patscheider M, Berghaus, A, Hempel JM. Auricular reconstruction with porous polyethylene frameworks: outcome and patient benefit in 65 children and adults. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2010;126(4):1201‐1212.
74.
BraunTPatscheiderMBerghausAHempelJM. Scars after total ear reconstruction with porous polyethylene: the patient’s perspective. Eur J Plast Surg. 2013;36(7):413‐416.
75.
CuiCHoonSYZhangR, Zhang Q, Xu Z, Xu F, Li D, Li Y. Patient satisfaction and its influencing factors of microtia reconstruction using autologous cartilage. Aesthet Plast Surg. 2017;41(5):1106‐1114.
76.
CuiCLiYZhangR, Zhang Q, Xu Z, Chiu ES, Xu F, Li D, Li T, Chen W. Patient perception and satisfaction questionnaire for microtia reconstruction: a new clinical tool to improve patient outcome. J Craniofac Surg. 2018;29(2):e162‐e167.
77.
FanYWangYWangPChenYZhuYChenX. Aesthetic and hearing rehabilitation in patients with bilateral microtia-atresia. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2017;101:150‐157.
78.
HempelJMGratzaSBerghausABraunT. Patient benefit from ear reconstruction with porous polyethylene in severe cases of hemifacial microsomia. Eur J Plast Surg. 2013;36:219‐224.
79.
KlassenAFLongmireNMBulstrodeNWFisherDMKasraiLO'HaraJPanchapakesanVPusicALStewardKTsangarisE, et al. Development of a new patient-reported outcome measure for ear conditions: the ear-Q. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2018;6(8):e1842.
80.
KlassenAFRaeCBulstrodeNWBerenguerBCuiCFisherDMKasraiLLiYLloydMPanchapakesanV, et al. An international study to develop the EAR-Q patient-reported outcome measure for children and young adults with ear conditions. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2021;74(9):2341‐2348.
81.
KristiansenMÖbergMWikströmSO. Patients’ satisfaction after ear reconstruction with autologous rib cartilage. J Plast Surg Hand Surg. 2013;47(2):113‐117.
82.
RenYZhaoSWangD. Development and validation of a multidimensional quality of life questionnaire for congenital aural atresia. Acta Otolaryngol. 2012;132(7):708‐714.
83.
SchrötzlmairFGötzKPatscheiderMHempelJ. Outcome of auricular reconstruction with porous polyethylene frameworks: our 10 years of experience with 113 children and adults. Facial Plast Surg. Published online June 18, 2021. doi:10.1055/s-0041-1731070.
84.
SteffenAMagritzRFrenzelHEdwardsTSiegertR. Psychometric validation of the youth quality of life-facial differences questionnaire in patients following ear reconstruction with rib cartilage in microtia. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2012;129(1):184e‐186e.
85.
TsangarisERiffKBerenguerB, et al. Translation and cultural adaptation of the EAR-Q into Arabic, Chinese, French and Spanish for use in an international field-test study. Eur J Plast Surg.2020;43(2):159‐164.
86.
YounisIGaultDSabbaghWKangNV. Patient satisfaction and aesthetic outcomes after ear reconstruction with a Branemark-type, bone-anchored, ear prosthesis: a 16 year review. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2010;63(10):1650‐1655.
87.
GatehouseS. The Glasgow Health Status Questionnaires Manual. MRC Institute of Hearing Research, Glasgow Royal Infirmary; Glasgow, UK; 1998.
88.
KubbaHSwanIRCGatehouseS. The Glasgow children’s benefit inventory: a new instrument for assessing health-related benefit after an intervention. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 2004;113(12):980‐986.
89.
LongmireNMWong RiffKWYO’HaraJL, Aggarwala S, Allen GC, Bulstrode NW, Forrest CR, French BM, Goodacre TEE, Marucci D, et al. Development of a new module of the FACE-Q for children and young adults with diverse conditions associated with visible and/or functional facial differences. Facial Plast Surg. 2017;33(5):499‐508.
90.
RochatP. Five levels of self-awareness as they unfold early in life. Conscious Cogn. 2003;12(4):717‐731.
91.
SirinSR. Socioeconomic status and academic achievement: a meta-analytic review of research. Rev Educ Res. 2005;75(3):417‐453.
92.
LetourneauNLDuffett-LegerLLevacLWatsonBYoung-MorrisC. Socioeconomic status and child development: a meta-analysis. J Emot Behav Disord. 2013;21(3):211‐224.
93.
CrerandCESewerDBKazakAEClarkeARumseyN. Body image and quality of life in adolescents with craniofacial conditions. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2017;54:2‐12.
94.
StockNMHammondVOwenTKiffJShanlyARumseyN. Achieving consensus in the measurement of psychological adjustment to cleft lip and/or palate. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2016;53(4):421‐426.
95.
StockNMHammondVHearstD, Owen T, Edwards Z, Ridley M, Rumsey N. Achieving consensus in the measurement of psychological adjustment to cleft lip and/or palate at age 8 + years. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2020;57(6):746‐752.
96.
StockNMMarikPMageeL, Aspinall CL, Garcia L, Crerand C, Johns A. Facilitating positive psychosocial outcomes in craniofacial team care: strategies for medical providers. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2020;57(3):333‐343.
97.
StockNMZucchelliFHudsonNKiffJDHammondV. Promoting psychosocial adjustment in individuals born with cleft lip and/or palate and their families: current clinical practice in the United Kingdom. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2020;57(2):186‐197.
98.
EngelGL. The need for a new medical model: a challenge for biomedicine. Science. 1977;196(4286):129‐136.
99.
Borrell-CarrióFSuchmanALEpsteinRM. The biopsychosocial model 25 years later: principles, practice, and scientific inquiry. Ann Fam Med. 2004;2(6):576‐582.
100.
BronfenbrennerU. Toward an experimental ecology of human development. Am Psychol. 1977;32(7):513‐531.
101.
StockNMFeragenKB. Assessing psychological adjustment to congenital craniofacial anomalies: an illustration of methodological challenges. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2019;56(1):64‐73.
102.
FeiseRJ. Do multiple outcome measures require p-value adjustment?BMC Med Res Methodol. 2002;2:8.
103.
StaffaSJZurakowskiD. Strategies in adjusting for multiple comparisons: a primer for pediatric surgeons. J Pediatr Surg. 2020;55(9):1699‐1705.
104.
PannuciCJWilkinsEG. Identifying and avoiding bias in research. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2010;126(2):619‐625.
105.
TapiaVJEpsteinSTolmachOSHassanASChungNNGosmanAA. Health-related quality-of-life instruments for pediatric patients with diverse facial deformities: a systematic literature review. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2016;138(1):175‐187.
106.
WickertNMWong RiffKWYMansourM, Forrest CR, Goodacre TEE, Pusic AL, Klassen AF. Content validity of patient-reported outcome instruments used with pediatric patients with facial differences: a systematic review. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2018;55(7):989‐998.
107.
WangWDongXQuJLinYLiuL. Bibliometric analysis of microtia-related publications from 2006 to 2020. Ear Nose Throat J. Published online on July 31, 2021. doi:10.1177/01455613211037641.
108.
SteffenAFrenzelH. Psychometric evaluation in severe ear deformities: critical analysis of the current situation [in German]. HNO. 2014;62(8):560‐563.
109.
StockNMFeragenKBMossTPRumseyN. Toward a conceptual and methodological shift in craniofacial research. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2018;55(1):105‐111.
110.
RanganathanPPrameshCSBuyseM. Common pitfalls in statistical analysis: clinical versus statistical significance. Perspect Clin Res. 2015;6(3):169‐170.
111.
StockNMCrerandCEJohnsAL, Costa B, Keohane D, Stueckle L, Mills, A, Heike C, CARE Team. Accelerating research and education in craniofacial microsomia. Poster Presented at: 9th Biennial Appearance Matters Conference Online, July, 2021, Bath, UK.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
