Rozendaal Anna M, Luijsterburg Antonius J M, Mohangoo Ashna D, Ongkosuwito Edwin M, de Vries Esther, Vermeij-Keers Christl
Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Erasmus Medical Center, University Medical Center Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2012 Sep;49(5):609-17. doi: 10.1597/10-109. Epub 2010 Nov 23.
Since 1997, common oral clefts in the Netherlands have been recorded in the national oral cleft registry using a unique descriptive recording system. This study validates data on the topographic-anatomical structure, morphology, and side of individual anomalies of the primary palate and secondary palate that form the oral cleft.
Validation study.
All 15 Dutch cleft palate teams reporting presurgery oral cleft patients to the national registry.
A random sample of 250 cases registered in the national database with oral clefts from 1997 through 2003; of these, 13 cases were excluded.
By linking registry data with clinical data, we identified differential recording rates by comparing the prevalence, and we measured the degree of agreement by computing validity and reliability statistics.
The topographic-anatomical structures (lip, alveolus, and hard and soft palates) of the anomalies had near-perfect interdatabase agreement with a sensitivity of 88% to 99%. However, when analyzing the individual anomalies in detail (morphology and side), validity decreased and depended on morphological severity. This association was most evident for anomalies of the secondary palate. For example, sensitivity was higher for "complete cleft hard palate" (92%) than for "submucous cleft hard/soft palate" (69%).
Overall, the validity of Dutch registry data on oral clefts is good, supporting the feasibility of this unique recording system. However, when analyzing oral cleft data in detail, the quality appears to be related to anatomical location and morphological severity. This might have implications for etiologic research based on registry data and for guidelines on neonatal examination.
自1997年以来,荷兰常见的口腔裂隙已通过独特的描述性记录系统记录在国家口腔裂隙登记处。本研究验证了构成口腔裂隙的原发腭和继发腭个体异常的地形解剖结构、形态和侧别数据。
验证性研究。
向国家登记处报告术前口腔裂隙患者的所有15个荷兰腭裂治疗团队。
从1997年至2003年在国家数据库中登记的250例口腔裂隙病例的随机样本;其中13例被排除。
通过将登记数据与临床数据相联系,我们通过比较患病率确定了差异记录率,并通过计算有效性和可靠性统计量来衡量一致性程度。
异常的地形解剖结构(唇、牙槽、硬腭和软腭)在数据库间具有近乎完美的一致性,敏感性为88%至99%。然而,在详细分析个体异常(形态和侧别)时,有效性降低且取决于形态严重程度。这种关联在继发腭异常中最为明显。例如,“完全性硬腭裂”的敏感性(92%)高于“硬/软腭黏膜下裂”(69%)。
总体而言,荷兰口腔裂隙登记数据的有效性良好,支持了这种独特记录系统的可行性。然而,在详细分析口腔裂隙数据时,质量似乎与解剖位置和形态严重程度有关。这可能对基于登记数据的病因学研究以及新生儿检查指南产生影响。