BMJ 1995;311:1431 (25 November)

Letters

Managing cleft lip and palate

Editorial proves controversial

EDITOR,--In their two year Medline search for studies on the results of cleft surgery Tony Markus and Peter Ward Booth found just one British study, and they criticise the lack of British studies.1 Six studies on primary and secondary surgery and outcome analysis are noteworthy,2 3 4 5 6 7 as is a book on speech.8

Citing just the Eurocleft study, which included two British centres, Markus and Ward Booth state that British results are poor. This is not true in other British studies.9 10 The authors neglect to mention that the two centres with the best results in the Eurocleft study used different surgical techniques (none like Markus's) and high volume operators (none of them maxillofacial surgeons). On high volume operators Markus and Ward Booth are incoherent. They move from implying that specialist high volume operators are preferable to stating that high volume operators and large, centralised units do not guarantee good . . . [Full text of this article]


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?

Relevant Article

Managing cleft lip and palate
Tony Markus and Peter Ward Booth
BMJ 1995 311: 765. [Extract] [Full Text]

This article has been cited by other articles:

  • Morgan, B D G, Williams, A., Sandy, J., Smyth, A. G, Davies, G. (1998). Report on cleft lip and palate surgery. BMJ 316: 1461-1461 [Full text]  
  • Davies, G., Partridge, J. (1996). Managing cleft lip and palate. BMJ 312: 252c-253 [Full text]  
Access all current jobs at BMJ Group
Whats new online at Student BMJ
Listen to the latest BMJ Interview