Cookies on this website

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you click 'Accept all cookies' we'll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies and you won't see this message again. If you click 'Reject all non-essential cookies' only necessary cookies providing core functionality such as security, network management, and accessibility will be enabled. Click 'Find out more' for information on how to change your cookie settings.

© 2019 Elsevier Ltd Background: The CLEFT-Q is a patient-reported outcome measure developed for use in patients with cleft lip and/or palate. A significant indicator of the CLEFT-Q's validity relates to its ability to detect differences between the impact of specific aspects of clefting before and after surgery. This study compares relevant sub-scale scores of the CLEFT-Q for patients requiring four specific surgical treatments against those who either have had surgery or never needed surgery. Methods: CLEFT-Q scores and clinical information regarding the past and future need for jaw surgery, lip revision, rhinoplasty, and speech surgery were obtained from the CLEFT-Q field-test data. Eight one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) models were developed to compare mean scores of relevant CLEFT-Q scales between those who needed surgery, those who have had surgery, and those who never needed surgery. Only patients from high-income countries were included to minimize the impact of any economic confounders that could result in treatment variation. In the rhinoplasly and lip revision models, patients without a cleft lip were excluded. In the jaw surgery and speech surgery models, patients without a cleft palate or alveolus were excluded. Results: The CLEFT-Q field test included 1938 participants from high-income countries. Participants who needed surgery scored significantly lower (worse) than those who have had surgery in each of the eight relevant CLEFT-Q scales (p < 0.001 in each ANOVA). Conclusion: The ability of the CLEFT-Q to detect differences between groups based on surgical status further supports its validity.

Original publication




Journal article


Journal of plastic, reconstructive and aesthetic surgery

Publication Date