To assess the ability of a cleft-specific multi-site learning health network registry to describe variations in cleft outcomes by cleft phenotypes, ages, and treatment centers. Observed variations were assessed for coherence with prior study findings.
Design
Cross-sectional analysis of prospectively collected data from 2019–2022.
Setting
Six cleft treatment centers collected data systematically during routine clinic appointments according to a standardized protocol.
Participants
714 English-speaking children and adolescents with non-syndromic cleft lip/palate.
Intervention
Routine multidisciplinary care and systematic outcomes measurement by cleft teams.
Outcome Measures
Speech outcomes included articulatory accuracy measured by Percent Consonants Correct (PCC), velopharyngeal function measured by Velopharyngeal Competence (VPC) Rating Scale (VPC-R), intelligibility measured by caregiver-reported Intelligibility in Context Scale (ICS), and two CLEFT-Q™ surveys, in which patients rate their own speech function and level of speech distress.
Results
12year-olds exhibited high median PCC scores (91–100%), high frequency of velopharyngeal competency (62.50–100%), and high median Speech Function (80–91) relative to younger peers parsed by phenotype. Patients with bilateral cleft lip, alveolus, and palate reported low PCC scores (51–91%) relative to peers at some ages and low frequency of velopharyngeal competency (26.67%) at 5 years. ICS scores ranged from 3.93–5.0 for all ages and phenotypes. Speech Function and Speech Distress were similar across phenotypes.
Conclusions
This exploration of speech outcomes demonstrates the current ability of the cleft-specific registry to support cleft research efforts as a source of “real-world” data. Further work is focused on developing robust methodology for hypothesis-driven research and causal inference.
ShawWCSembGNelsonP, et al.The Eurocleft project 1996–2000: Overview. J Cranio-Maxillo-fac Surg Off Publ Eur Assoc Cranio-Maxillo-fac Surg. 2001;29(3):131-140; discussion 141–142. doi:https://doi.org/10.1054/jcms.2001.0217
2.
BrattströmVMølstedKPrahl-AndersenBSembGShawWC. The Eurocleft study: Intercenter study of treatment outcome in patients with complete cleft lip and palate. Part 2: Craniofacial form and nasolabial appearance. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2005;42(1):69-77. doi:https://doi.org/10.1597/02-119.2.1
3.
WilladsenEJørgensenLDAlaluusuaS, et al.Scandcleft randomized trials of primary surgery for unilateral cleft lip and palate: Speech proficiency at 10 years of age. Int J Lang Commun Disord. Published online December 21, 2022. 2023;58(3):667-987. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/1460-6984.12830
4.
LohmanderAPerssonCWilladsenE, et al.Scandcleft randomised trials of primary surgery for unilateral cleft lip and palate: 4. Speech outcomes in 5-year-olds - velopharyngeal competency and hypernasality. J Plast Surg Hand Surg. 2017;51(1):27-37. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/2000656X.2016.1254645
5.
ChapmanKLBaylisATrost-CardamoneJ, et al.The americleft speech project: A training and reliability study. Cleft Palate-Craniofacial J Off Publ Am Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Assoc. 2016;53(1):93-108. doi:https://doi.org/10.1597/14-027
6.
SitzmanTJMaraCALongREJr, et al.The americleft project: Burden of care from secondary surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2015;3(7):e442. doi:https://doi.org/10.1097/gox.0000000000000415
7.
SandyJWilliamsAMildinhallS, et al.The clinical standards advisory group (CSAG) cleft lip and palate study. Br J Orthod. 1998;25(1):21-30. doi:https://doi.org/10.1093/ortho/25.1.21
8.
SellDGrunwellPMildinhallS, et al.Cleft lip and palate care in the United Kingdom–the Clinical Standards Advisory Group (CSAG) Study. Part 3: Speech outcomes. Cleft Palate-Craniofacial J Off Publ Am Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Assoc. 2001;38(1):30-37. doi:https://doi.org/10.1597/1545-1569_2001_038_0030_clapci_2.0.co_2
9.
SellDMildinhallSAlberyLWillsAKSandyJRNessAR. The cleft care UK study. Part 4: Perceptual speech outcomes. Orthod Craniofac Res. 2015;18(Suppl 2):36-46. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/ocr.12112
10.
NessARWillsAKWaylenA, et al.Centralization of cleft care in the UK. Part 6: A tale of two studies. Orthod Craniofac Res. 2015;18(Suppl 2):56-62. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/ocr.12111
11.
PerssonMSandyJRWaylenA, et al.A cross-sectional survey of 5-year-old children with non-syndromic unilateral cleft lip and palate: The cleft care UK study. Part 1: Background and methodology. Orthod Craniofac Res. 2015;18(Suppl 2):1-13. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/ocr.12104
SeifertMDaviesAHardingSMcLeodSWrenY. Intelligibility in 3-year-olds with cleft lip and/or palate using the intelligibility in context scale: Findings from the cleft collective cohort study. Cleft Palate-Craniofacial J Off Publ Am Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Assoc. 2021;58(9):1178-1189. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/1055665620985747
14.
ConroyEJCooperRShawW, et al.A randomised controlled trial comparing palate surgery at 6 months versus 12 months of age (the TOPS trial): A statistical analysis plan. Trials. 2021;22(1):5. doi:https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-020-04886-y
15.
KlintöKErikssonMAbdiuA, et al.Inter-centre comparison of data on surgery and speech outcomes at 5 years of age based on the Swedish quality registry for patients born with cleft palate with or without cleft lip. BMC Pediatr. 2022;22(1):303. doi:https://doi.org/10.1186/s12887-022-03367-2
16.
KlintöKSvenssonHElanderALohmanderA. Speech and phonology in Swedish-speaking 3-year-olds with unilateral complete cleft lip and palate following different methods for primary palatal surgery. Cleft Palate-Craniofacial J Off Publ Am Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Assoc. 2014;51(3):274-282. doi:https://doi.org/10.1597/12-299
17.
KlintöKBrunnegårdKHavstamC, et al.Speech in 5-year-olds born with unilateral cleft lip and palate: A prospective Swedish intercenter study. J Plast Surg Hand Surg. 2019;53(5):309-315. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/2000656X.2019.1615929
18.
MaissenhaelterBEWoolmoreALSchlagPM. Real-world evidence research based on big data: Motivation-challenges-success factors. Onkol Berl. 2018;24(Suppl 2):91-98. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s00761-018-0358-3
19.
BlondeLKhuntiKHarrisSBMeizingerCSkolnikNS. Interpretation and impact of real-world clinical data for the practicing clinician. Adv Ther. 2018;35(11):1763-1774. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s12325-018-0805-y
ConcatoJSteinPDal PanGJBallRCorrigan-CurayJ. Randomized, observational, interventional, and real-world-what’s in a name?Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2020;29(11):1514-1517. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/pds.5123
24.
García-AlbénizXHsuJHernánMA. The value of explicitly emulating a target trial when using real world evidence: An application to colorectal cancer screening. Eur J Epidemiol. 2017;32(6):495-500. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10654-017-0287-2
25.
HernánMARobinsJM. Using big data to emulate a target trial when a randomized trial is not available. Am J Epidemiol. 2016;183(8):758-764. doi:https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwv254
26.
HernánMAWangWLeafDE. Target trial emulation: A framework for causal inference from observational data. JAMA. 2022;328(24):2446-2447. doi:https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2022.21383
27.
FranklinJMPatornoEDesaiRJ, et al.Emulating randomized clinical trials with nonrandomized real-world evidence studies: First results from the RCT DUPLICATE initiative. Circulation. 2021;143(10):1002-1013. doi:https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.120.051718
28.
ForrestCBMcTigueKMHernandezAF, et al.PCORnet® 2020: Current state, accomplishments, and future directions. J Clin Epidemiol. 2021;129(1):60-67. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.09.036
29.
RamanSRCurtisLHTempleR, et al.Leveraging electronic health records for clinical research. Am Heart J. 2018;202(1):13-19. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ahj.2018.04.015
30.
RamanSRO’BrienECHammillBG, et al.Evaluating fitness-for-use of electronic health records in pragmatic clinical trials: Reported practices and recommendations. J Am Med Inform Assoc JAMIA. 2022;29(5):798-804. doi:https://doi.org/10.1093/jamia/ocac004
31.
KlintöKKarstenAMarcussonA, et al.Coverage, reporting degree and design of the Swedish quality registry for patients born with cleft lip and/or palate. BMC Health Serv Res. 2020;20(1):528. doi:https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-020-05389-x
32.
BrunnegårdKHagbergEHavstamCOkhiriaÅKlintöK. Reliability of speech variables and speech-related quality indicators in the Swedish cleft lip and palate registry. Cleft Palate-Craniofacial J Off Publ Am Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Assoc. 2020;57(6):715-722. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/1055665619894497
33.
KlintöKHagbergEHavstamCNelliCOkhiriaÅBrunnegårdK. Reliability of data on percent consonants correct and its associated quality indicator in the Swedish cleft lip and palate registry. Logoped Phoniatr Vocol. Published online July 4, 2022:2022:1-7. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/14015439.2022.2095017
34.
WHO Registry Meeting on Craniofacial Anomalies (2001: Bauru B, Mossey PA, Catilla EE, Programme WHG, WHO Meeting on International Collaborative Research on Craniofacial Anomalies (3rd : 2001: Bauru B. Global Registry and Database on Craniofacial Anomalies: Report of a WHO Registry Meeting on Craniofacial Anomalies. World Health Organization; 2003. Accessed August 11, 2023. https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/42840
ACCQUIREnet | Duke Department of Surgery. Accessed October 7, 2022. https://surgery.duke.edu/divisions/plastic-maxillofacial-and-oral-surgery/research/clinical-research/datalab-clinical-care-and-population-health/accquirenet
38.
KlintöKSporreMBeckerM. Speech in a consecutive series of children born with cleft lip and palate with and without syndromes and/or additional malformations. BMC Pediatr. 2021;21(1):309. doi:https://doi.org/10.1186/s12887-021-02783-0
39.
ChoaRMSlatorRJeremyA, et al.Identifying the effect of cleft type, deprivation and ethnicity on speech and dental outcomes in UK cleft patients: A multi-centred study. J Plast Reconstr Aesthetic Surg JPRAS. 2014;67(12):1637-1643. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjps.2014.07.018
40.
ButterworthSFitzsimonsKJMedinaJ, et al.Investigating the impact of patient-related factors on speech outcomes at 5 years of age in children with a cleft palate. Cleft Palate-Craniofacial J Off Publ Am Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Assoc. Published online June 22, 2022:2022:10556656221110094. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/10556656221110094
41.
MahoneyMHSwanMCFisherDM. Prospective analysis of presurgical risk factors for outcomes in primary palatoplasty. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2013;132(1):165-171. doi:https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0b013e3182910acb
42.
BaillieLSellD. Benchmarking speech, velopharyngeal function outcomes and surgical characteristics following the sommerlad protocol and palate repair technique. Cleft Palate-Craniofacial J Off Publ Am Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Assoc. 2020;57(10):1197-1215. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/1055665620923925
43.
KarlingJLarsonOLeandersonRHenningssonG. Speech in unilateral and bilateral cleft palate patients from Stockholm. Cleft Palate-Craniofacial J Off Publ Am Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Assoc. 1993;30(1):73-77. doi:https://doi.org/10.1597/1545-1569_1993_030_0073_siuabc_2.3.co_2
44.
McWilliamsBJ. Submucous clefts of the palate: How likely are they to be symptomatic?Cleft Palate-Craniofacial J Off Publ Am Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Assoc. 1991;28(3):247-249; discussion 250-251. doi:https://doi.org/10.1597/1545-1569_1991_028_0247_scotph_2.3.co_2
45.
WilladsenELohmanderAPerssonC, et al.Scandcleft randomised trials of primary surgery for unilateral cleft lip and palate: 5. Speech outcomes in 5-year-olds - consonant proficiency and errors. J Plast Surg Hand Surg. 2017;51(1):38-51. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/2000656X.2016.1254647
46.
LohmanderAFriedeHLiljaJ. Long-term, longitudinal follow-up of individuals with unilateral cleft lip and palate after the Gothenburg primary early veloplasty and delayed hard palate closure protocol: Speech outcome. Cleft Palate-Craniofacial J Off Publ Am Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Assoc. 2012;49(6):657-671. doi:https://doi.org/10.1597/11-085
AlloriACKelleyTMearaJG, et al. A standard set of outcome measures for the comprehensive appraisal of cleft care. Cleft Palate Craniofacial J. 2017;54(5):540-554.
49.
BittarPGCarlsonARMabie-DeRuyterAMarcusJRAlloriAC. Implementation of a standardized data-collection system for comprehensive appraisal of cleft care. Cleft Palate Craniofacial J. 2018;55(10):1382-1390. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/1055665618764952
50.
HarrisPATaylorRThielkeRPayneJGonzalezNCondeJG. Research electronic data capture (REDCap)–a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform. 2009;42(2):377-381. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbi.2008.08.010
51.
HarrisPATaylorRMinorBL, et al.The REDCap consortium: Building an international community of software platform partners. J Biomed Inform. 2019;95(1):103208. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbi.2019.103208
52.
AlloriACMullikenJBMearaJGShustermanSMarcusJR. Classification of cleft lip/palate: Then and now. Cleft Palate Craniofacial J. 2017;54(2):175-188. doi:https://doi.org/10.1597/14-080
53.
ShribergLDAustinDLewisBAMcSweenyJLWilsonDL. The percentage of consonants correct (PCC) metric: Extensions and reliability data. J Speech Lang Hear Res JSLHR. 1997;40(4):708-722. doi:https://doi.org/10.1044/jslhr.4004.708
54.
GoldmanR. Goldman Fristoe 3 Test of Articulation. 3rd edition. NCS Pearson, Inc.; 2015.
55.
LohmanderAHagbergEPerssonC, et al.Validity of auditory perceptual assessment of velopharyngeal function and dysfunction - the VPC-sum and the VPC-rate. Clin Linguist Phon. 2017;31(7-9):589-597. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/02699206.2017.1302510
56.
McLeodSHarrisonLJMcCormackJ. The intelligibility in context scale: Validity and reliability of a subjective rating measure. J Speech Lang Hear Res JSLHR. 2012;55(2):648-656. doi:https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2011/10-0130)
57.
McLeodSCroweKShahaeianA. Intelligibility in context scale: Normative and validation data for English-speaking preschoolers. Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch. 2015;46(3):266-276. doi:https://doi.org/10.1044/2015_LSHSS-14-0120
58.
MiroshnychenkoARaeCRiffKW, et al.Psychometric validation of the CLEFT-Q patient reported outcome measure: A prospective study to examine cross-sectional construct validity. Cleft Palate-Craniofacial J Off Publ Am Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Assoc. 2023;60(3):257-375. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/10556656211062837
59.
Wong RiffKWYTsangarisEGoodacreTEE, et al.What matters to patients with cleft lip and/or palate: An international qualitative study informing the development of the CLEFT-Q. Cleft Palate-Craniofacial J Off Publ Am Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Assoc. 2018;55(3):442-450. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/1055665617732854
60.
KlassenAWong RiffK. CLEFT-Q | Q-Portfolio - MEASURING WHAT MATTERS TO PATIENTS. Q. Published June 28, 2017. Accessed October 7, 2022. https://qportfolio.org/cleft-q/
61.
Van RossumGDrakeFL. Python 3 Reference Manual. CreateSpace; 2009.
MaiCIsenburgJCanfieldM, et al.National population-based estimates for major birth defects, 2010-2014. Birth Defects Res. 2019;111(18):1420-1435. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/bdr2.1589
64.
SalariNDarvishiNHeydariMBokaeeSDarvishiFMohammadiM. Global prevalence of cleft palate, cleft lip and cleft palate and lip: A comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis. J Stomatol Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2022;123(2):110-120. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jormas.2021.05.008
65.
RiskiJEDeLongE. Articulation development in children with cleft lip/palate. Cleft Palate J. 1984;21(2):57-64.
66.
KellySNShearerJ. Appearance and speech satisfaction and their associations with psychosocial difficulties among young people with cleft lip and/or palate. Cleft Palate-Craniofacial J Off Publ Am Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Assoc. 2020;57(8):1008-1017. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/1055665620926083
67.
AponIvan LeeuwenNKoudstaalMJ, et al.Optimizing the psychosocial function measures in the international consortium for health outcomes measurement standard set for cleft. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2023;151(2):274e-281e. doi:https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000009852
68.
OmbashiSKurniawanMSICKoudstaalMJ, et al.Most efficient and meaningful patient reported appearance assessment in different cleft types and age-groups with Cleft-Q. Plast Reconstr Surg. Published online April 11, 2023. 2023. doi:https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000010523
69.
DrVDHlMCV. Patterns of articulation abilities in speakers with cleft palate. Cleft Palate J. 1979;16(3):230-239. Accessed September 13, 2023. http://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/287573/
Wong RiffKWYTsangarisEForrestCR, et al.CLEFT-Q: Detecting differences in outcomes among 2434 patients with varying cleft types. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2019;144(1):78e-88e. doi:https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000005723
72.
YuanNDorafsharAHFollmarKEPendletonCFergusonKRedettRJ. Effects of cleft width and veau type on incidence of palatal fistula and velopharyngeal insufficiency after cleft palate repair. Ann Plast Surg. 2016;76(4):406-410. doi:https://doi.org/10.1097/SAP.0000000000000407
73.
WuRCheraghlouSParsaeiYTraviesoRSteinbacherDM. Does cleft palate width correlate with veau classification and outcome?J Craniofac Surg. 2017;28(5):1369-1374. doi:https://doi.org/10.1097/SCS.0000000000003646
74.
OkhiriaÅCJabbariFHakeliusMMJohanssonMMBNowinskiDJ. Greater palatal cleft width predicts an increased risk for unfavorable outcomes in cleft palate repair. Cleft Palate-Craniofacial J Off Publ Am Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Assoc. 2022;59(8):1030-1037. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/10556656211029537
75.
SellDSouthbyLWrenY, et al.Centre-level variation in speech outcome and interventions, and factors associated with poor speech outcomes in 5-year-old children with non-syndromic unilateral cleft lip and palate: The cleft care UK study. Part 4. Orthod Craniofac Res. 2017;20(Suppl 2):27-39. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/ocr.12186
76.
SmythAGWuJ. Cleft palate outcomes and prognostic impact of palatal fistula on subsequent velopharyngeal function-a retrospective cohort study. Cleft Palate-Craniofacial J Off Publ Am Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Assoc. 2019;56(8):1008-1012. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/1055665619829388
77.
SellDJohnAHarding-BellASweeneyTHegartyFFreemanJ. Cleft audit protocol for speech (CAPS-A): A comprehensive training package for speech analysis. Int J Lang Commun Disord. 2009;44(4):529-548. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/13682820802196815
78.
JohnASellDSweeneyTHarding-BellAWilliamsA. The cleft audit protocol for speech—augmented: A validated and reliable measure for auditing cleft speech. Cleft Palate Craniofacial J. 2006;43(3):272-288. doi:https://doi.org/10.1597/04-141.1
79.
SellDHardingAGrunwellP. GOS.SP.ASS.’98: An assessment for speech disorders associated with cleft palate and/or velopharyngeal dysfunction (revised). Int J Lang Commun Disord. 1999;34(1):17-33. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/136828299247595
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.
