4.0 Article

Opportunities and Challenges in Establishing a Cohort Study: An Example From Cleft Lip/Palate Research in the United Kingdom

期刊

CLEFT PALATE-CRANIOFACIAL JOURNAL
卷 53, 期 3, 页码 317-325

出版社

ALLIANCE COMMUNICATIONS GROUP DIVISION ALLEN PRESS
DOI: 10.1597/14-306

关键词

cause; cleft; cohort study; environment; gene; measurement; psychological adjustment; treatment

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Cleft lip and/or palate (CL/P) is one of the most common birth conditions in the world, but little is known about its causes. Professional opinion remains divided as to which treatments may be the most beneficial for patients with CL/P, and the factors that contribute to psychological adjustment are poorly understood. The use of different methodological approaches and tools plays a key role in hampering efforts to address discrepancies within the evidence base. A new UK-wide program of research, The Cleft Collective, was established to combat many of these methodological challenges and to address some of the key research questions important to all CL/P stakeholders. Objective: To describe the establishment of CL/P cohort studies in the United Kingdom and to consider the many opportunities this resource will generate. Results: To date, protocols have been developed and implemented within most UK cleft teams. Biological samples, environmental information, and data pertaining to parental psychological well-being and child development are being collected successfully. Recruitment is currently on track to meet the ambitious target of approximately 9800 individuals from just more than 3000 families. Conclusions: The Cleft Collective cohort studies represent a significant step forward for research in the field of CL/P. The data collected will form a comprehensive resource of information about individuals with CL/P and their families. This resource will provide the basis for many future projects and collaborations, both in the United Kingdom and around the world.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.0
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据