Maternal cigarette smoking and cleft lip and palate: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Matthew Fell, Kyle Dack, Shaheel Chummun, Jonathan Sandy, Yvonne Wren, Sarah Lewis
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.06.10.21258688

ABSTRACT

Objectives A systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the association between active maternal smoking and cleft lip and palate etiology.

Data Sources Medline, Embase, Web of Science and the Cochrane database from inception to November 2020.

Study selection Observational studies of cigarette smoking habits in pregnant women. Outcomes included cleft lip and/or palate, cleft lip ± palate and cleft palate only.

Data analysis Publication bias analyses were performed and the Newcastle Ottawa scales were used to assess study quality. Fixed or random effect models were used in the meta-analysis, dependent on risk of statistical heterogeneity.

Results Forty-five studies were eligible for inclusion of which 11 were cohort and 34 were case-control studies. Sixteen studies were of sufficient standard for inclusion in the meta-analysis. The summary odds ratio for the association between smoking and cleft lip and/or palate was 1.42 (95%CI 1.27 to 1.59) with a population attributable fraction of 4% (95%CI 3% - 5%). There was limited evidence to show a dose-response effect of smoking.

Conclusions This review reports a moderate association between maternal smoking and orofacial cleft but the overall quality of the conventional observational studies included was poor. There is a need for high quality and novel research strategies to further define the role of smoking in the etiology of cleft lip and palate.

INTRODUCTION

Cleft lip and/or palate (CL/P) is one of the most common craniofacial birth defects, occurring in approximately 1/700 births (Mossey et al., 2009). It affects children and their families because of appearance and functional difficulties with speech, eating, social interaction and child development. Seventy percent of children born with CL/P do not have an associated syndrome and the anomaly is believed to be caused by a complex pattern of inheritance with both genetic and environmental influences (Lebby et al., 2010). Defining the role of potentially modifiable environmental factors could reduce the incidence of this congenital abnormality (Raut et al., 2019). Maternal smoking is a modifiable environmental factor, which is considered a causal factor for CL/P in the 2014 US Surgeon General’s Report (United States Department of Health and Human Services 2014).

Cigarette smoke is a complex aerosol comprising more than 4,000 different compounds that can cause harm (Martelli et al., 2015). Maternal smoking has attracted research interest because it is a common exposure and has been established as a risk factor for a spectrum of adverse offspring outcomes including preterm birth, low birth weight and birth anomalies (Krueger and Rohrich 2001; Hackshaw et al., 2011). It is biologically plausible that maternal smoking could cause CL/P, although the exact mechanism is unknown (Leite et al., 2002; Krapels et al., 2008). There may be a direct interaction of the smoking products with neonatal tissue, leading to induced hypoxia because of impaired angiogenesis and nicotine-mediated vasoconstriction, which has been shown to disrupt palatal fusion in animal models (Vieira and Dattilo, 2018). An alternative theory is that smoking affects DNA methylation in the fetus, which could impact upon gene expression responsible for lip and palate formation (Lebby et al., 2010).

Three previous meta-analyses have demonstrated weak to moderate links between maternal smoking and CL/P (Wyszynski et al., 1997; Julian Little et al., 2004; Xuan et al., 2016;). Whilst previous systematic reviews have been comprehensive, the included studies were not assessed for their quality and this might have compromised the validity of the findings (Crossan and Duane, 2018). Potential sources of bias in the primary studies include no adjustment for confounders, inappropriate control groups and recall bias. There is a need for an updated systematic review with rigorous methodology in this field. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis in order to determine the role of active maternal cigarette smoking in the etiology of CL/P.

METHODS

Identification of studies

A full protocol of this systematic review, carried out following PRISMA guidance(Moher et al., 2009), was adhered to (see supplementary Table 1) and is available from the PROSPERO systematic review register (registration number CRD42020222837; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42020222837).

Eligible studies were defined as full-text primary-data publications reporting on pregnant women from the general population who were assessed for pre-natal active cigarette smoking. Studies were required to document maternal smoking (either in the peri-conception period or any of the three trimesters) but the assessment of smoking status could have been performed prospectively or retrospectively. Studies of passive (or environmental) maternal smoking or paternal smoking were not included. The protocol included all epidemiological studies using an analytical design whereby an exposed group was compared to an unexposed group. Cohort, case-control, quasi-experimental, natural experiment, family based negative control and Mendelian Randomization study designs were eligible.

The outcome of interest was a live born child with CL/P or subtypes such as cleft lip only, cleft lip ± palate (CL±P), cleft palate only (CP) or submucous cleft. Where studies made a distinction between children born with an isolated cleft or a cleft co-occurring with other anomalies, or where results were provided for those with non-syndromic and syndromic orofacial clefts separately, effect estimates for isolated and non-syndromic clefts were extracted preferentially.

Studies were excluded if: full text was unavailable; they were conference proceedings only; they were descriptive studies such as case studies, case series, cross-sectional studies, expert opinion, letter, editorials or studies using secondary data such as reviews; they were animal studies; or there was insufficient data to estimate the effect size of the association between maternal smoking and CL/P (see Supplementary Table 2 for exclusion and exclusion criteria).

The databases searched included Medline, Embase, the Web of Science and the Cochrane Library from inception to 9th November 2020. The search was tailored individually to each database with input from a University Librarian (see Supplementary Figures 1-4 for search strategies) and there was no language restriction. The search focused on published literature and did not include grey literature. In addition, manual searches of reference lists of recent relevant systematic reviews and all studies included in the systematic review were performed.

Figure 1:
Figure 1:

A flow chart of the search strategy and study selection

Titles and abstracts were reviewed independently by two reviewers (MF/KD) according to the specified inclusion/exclusion criteria and differences resolved through discussion to reach a consensus. Where an abstract was not available or where a decision on inclusion/exclusion could not be reached by reviewing the abstract alone, full text screening was similarly performed independently by two reviewers for inclusion and any disagreements resolved through discussion. When multiple reports of a study were identified, the study with the greatest number of patients was selected. The Rayyan web application was used to facilitate the screening process (Ouzzani et al., 2016).

Data extraction

Data was extracted via Microsoft Forms into an excel spreadsheet. Data extracted included: title, authors, publication year, country of study population, study design, sample description, sample size, outcomes recorded, confounding factors measured and study outcomes including dose-response data. Adjusted measures of effect were extracted preferentially to reduce the impact of confounding factors. Data from each study was extracted by one reviewer (MF) and checked for accuracy by a second reviewer (KD)(Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, 2009).

Assessment of study quality

The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS)(Wells et al., 2000) was used to assess the quality of cohort and case-control studies included in this systematic review. The NOS for cohort studies consists of eight questions amongst three domains (selection, comparability and outcome). Similarly, the NOS for case-control studies consists of eight questions amongst three domains (selection, comparability and exposure). Stars are awarded for adequate methodology and were used to allocate a score of good, fair or poor to each study with pre-defined criteria (see Supplementary Table 3). Good and fair studies were deemed appropriate for meta-analysis, whereas studies categorized as poor were deemed to be of too low quality for inclusion. Maternal age and maternal alcohol consumption were identified as the most important confounding factors, followed by folic acid supplementation and obesity, based on previous findings (Bille et al., 2005; Badovinac et al., 2007; Molina-Solana et al., 2013; Izedonmwen et al., 2015). Studies were required to adjust for maternal age and alcohol consumption in order to achieve at least a ‘fair’ rating and be included in the meta-analysis.

Funnel plots were used to visually assess the likelihood of small study publication bias if more than 10 studies were included and Egger’s test was calculated to quantify funnel plot asymmetry (Sterne et al., 2011).

Data Synthesis

A descriptive summary and narrative analysis of the included studies was performed, alongside an indication of study quality, in accordance with published guidance (Popay et al., 2006). Heterogeneity of the included studies was analyzed by exploring the study characteristics and using the I2 statistic where sufficiently similar studies were meta-analyzed.

The quantitative impact of maternal smoking as a cause of orofacial clefting was investigated using meta-analysis techniques where studies met the quality criteria for inclusion and shared sufficient methodological homogeneity. The minimum number of studies to conduct a meta-analysis was two. Pooled estimates for binary outcomes were calculated using the inverse variance method. The odds ration (OR) was the principle summary measure extracted from the primary studies and meta-analyzed. The fixed effects model was used where levels of statistical heterogeneity were low (I2 <50%); otherwise the random effects model was used. The population attributable fraction (PAF) was calculated to assess the public health impact (Mansournia and Altman, 2018) using the pooled odds ratio and the prevalence of exposure among cases (Miettinen, 1974). The dose-response impact of maternal smoking was analyzed for studies in which the smoking dose categories used by the included studies were analogous. Subgroup meta-analysis of the smoking dose categories was performed using the random effects model. Meta-analysis was performed using the “meta” package (Harrer et al., 2021) via the R Project for Statistical Computing (http://www.R-project.org/).

RESULTS

Study Selection and Study Characteristics

A flowchart for the article review process is shown in Figure 1. A total of 1334 citation records were identified from searching the four databases. A manual search of relevant systematic reviews and included studies identified 15 additional studies. After exclusions (see Supplementary Table 4), 45 studies from 44 publications were included in the systematic review (one publication reported two case-control studies from distinctly separate populations (Shi et al., 2007); 11 cohort studies and 34 case control studies (see Table 1). In total, 28,405 mothers giving birth to a live born child with CL/P have had their smoking status during pregnancy analyzed amongst the 45 studies.

View this table:
Table 1: Characteristics of Included Studies

Reported outcomes

Twenty-two studies reported on CL/P outcome, with the funnel plot not indicating publication bias (see Supplementary Figure 5) and an Egger’s test of 0.77 (95% Confidence Interval (CI): 0.32, 1.85, P=0.18). Nineteen studies reported on CL±P outcome with the funnel plot not indicating publication bias and an Egger’s test of 0.09 (95% CI: -0.1, 1.17, P=0.88). Nineteen studies reported on CP outcome with the funnel plot not indicating publication bias and an Egger’s test of -0.28 (95% CI: -1.77, 1.2, P=0.71). As only two studies reported with cleft lip alone as the outcome, a funnel plot was not performed for these.

Nine studies reported smoking dose-response effects for CL/P outcome, a further 14 studies gave results by smoking dose for CL±P as the outcome and 13 studies for CP as the outcome.

Table 2 shows the study quality assessment for cohort and case-control studies based on the NOS. Only one study(Raut et al., 2019) of the 45 included studies had low scores in all eight NOS questions. Three studies were deemed to be good quality, 13 studies were deemed fair quality, and 29 deemed poor quality and the latter were excluded from the meta-analysis. A greater proportion of cohort studies (5/11) met the quality threshold for meta-analysis inclusion than case- control studies (11/34). The most common area lacking was the failure to adjust for confounding factors. The potential for exposure recall bias was present in all 34 of the case-control studies as by definition, information on exposure was collected retrospectively. Only four out of 11 cohort studies collected maternal smoking exposure data prospectively.

View this table:
Table 2: Quality Assessment of Included Studies using the Newcastle Ottawa Scale.

All of the 11 cohort studies were truly or somewhat representative of the general population and were able to demonstrate the outcome of interest was not present at the start of the study. Of the case control studies, 7 out of 34 did not meet the participant selection domain criteria due to failing to demonstrate independent validation of case definition (11 of 34), the potential for selection bias of cases (23 of 34) and/or selected controls from hospitalized populations (21/34).

Comparability criteria was not met in 6 out of 11 cohort studies and 20 out of 34 case-control studies due to not adjusting for at least maternal age and maternal alcohol consumption as confounders in the analysis. Folic acid supplementation and obesity were adjusted for in less than half of included studies (see Supplementary Table 5).

All of the 11 cohort studies used record linkage to verify OFC outcome. Exposure criteria was not met by 18 out of 34 case-control studies because of relying on self-assessment (8 of 34), using an interviewer who was not blinded to case/control status (23 of 34) and/or the non-response rate of cases/controls was not described (20 of 34).

Meta-analysis

Five studies reporting effect estimates for smoking and CL/P were included in the meta-analysis (see Figure 2). There was no strong evidence of between study heterogeneity (I2=27%, P=0.24). The pooled OR using the fixed effects model was (95% CI: 1.27, 1.59). Based on the proportion of maternal smoking amongst case mothers of 14% in these five studies, the PAF was 4% (95% CI: 3%, 5%).

Figure 2:
Figure 2:

Forest plot to display the measures of effect for studies reporting cleft lip and/or palate outcome. The overall effect has been calculated using a fixed effects method.

Six studies reporting the effect for smoking and CL±P were included in the meta-analysis (see Figure 3). There was no evidence for statistical heterogeneity between the studies (I2 = 0%, P=0.67). The pooled OR using the fixed effects model was 1.31 (95% CI: 1.19, 1.45). Five studies reporting measures of effect for smoking and CP were included in the meta-analysis (see Figure 4). The statistical heterogeneity between the studies was high (I2 = 81%, P<0.01) due to an outlying case-control study performed in Hungary (Ács et al., 2020), reporting a stronger positive effect of smoking on CP than the other included studies. The pooled OR using the random effects model was 1.49 (95% CI: 1.01, 12.19). The exclusion of the outlying study in the CP meta-analysis resulted in no evidence for statistical heterogeneity (I2 = 0%, P=0.49) and a fixed effect pooled OR of 1.25 (95% CI: 1.09, 1.44). It was not possible to calculate the PAF for maternal smoking and CL±P or CP due to missing data in included studies, precluding calculation of prevalence of exposure.

Figure 3:
Figure 3:

Forest plot to display the measures of effect for studies reporting cleft lip ± palate outcome. The overall effect has been calculated using a fixed effects method.

Figure 4:
Figure 4:

Forest plot to display the measures of effect for studies reporting cleft palate only outcome. The overall effect has been calculated using a random effects method.

Individual study effect estimates and pooled analysis for all studies included in this systematic review reporting outcomes for CL/P, CL±P and CP can be found in Supplementary Figures 6-8.

Subgroup analysis

Five studies reporting measures of effect for the dose of smoking and CL/P were included in the subgroup meta-analysis (see Figure 5). All five studies measured three doses of smoking (low, medium and high) with comparable numbers of cigarettes smoked per day at each dose (1-10, 11-20 and >20 cigarettes per day). The pooled OR for the lowest dose of smoking was 1.20 (95% CI: 1.06, 1.36), for intermediate dose was 1.15 (95% CI: 0.97, 1.37) and highest dose was 1.45 (95% CI: 1.05, 2.00).

Figure 5:
Figure 5:

A subgroup forest plot to display the dose-response effect of smoking on cleft lip and/or palate outcome. The overall effect for each of the three dose categories (1-10, 11-20 and >20) has been calculated using a random effects model

Four studies were eligible for inclusion into the meta-analysis of the effect of smoking dose for both CL±P and CP respectively, but it was not possible to perform a meta-analysis because the reported smoking dose levels were not comparable.

DISCUSSION

Summary of evidence

There has been a large body of work to investigate the role of active maternal smoking in CL/P etiology, as shown by the 45 studies that met our inclusion criteria. This high volume of research should have provided a clear indication of the association between maternal smoking and CL/P, but the poor quality of studies overall has compromised the reliability of the reported findings. Only three studies out of the 45 included in this review were judged to be of good quality (Grewal et al., 2008; Raut et al., 2019; Sato et al., 2020;). The most common reason for poor quality within the studies was a failure to adjust for recognized confounding factors, placing the analyses at high risk of bias. Mother’s age, alcohol intake and obesity are all strongly associated with smoking behavior and all have been hypothesized to be risk factors for orofacial clefts. Furthermore, alcohol intake during pregnancy is a known teratogen, making the adjustment of these confounding risk factors even more critical (Carreras-Torres et al., 2018; Taylor et al., 2018; Taylor et al., 2019).

Our meta-analysis suggests that maternal smoking may have a moderate role in CL/P etiology with pooled OR of 1.42 (95% CI: 1.27, 1.59). The PAF estimates the proportion of the disease that would be reduced by eliminating exposure to a given risk factor, assuming the risk factor is causal. Smoking has previously been found to account for the largest risk when PAFs are calculated for a number of modifiable risk factors for CL/P (Raut et al., 2019). The pooled PAF of 4% (95% CI: 3%, 5%) in this review is similar to the previously reported range of 4-6% from three individual studies (Honein et al., 2007; Honein et al., 2014; Raut et al., 2019;). The indication here is that should maternal smoking be eliminated, 4% of CL/P would not occur. Evidence of a dose-response relationship can add support to a causal relationship. The analysis of dose effect in CL/P demonstrated the highest dose of smoking (>20 cigarettes per day) to have the strongest positive effect on risk of cleft, but the intermediate smoking dose (11-20 cigarettes per day) had a similar effect to the lowest dose (1-10 cigarettes per day). This may represent a threshold effect of more than 20 cigarettes needing to be smoked a day before a difference is noted in CL/P etiology. Alternatively, the greater effect in the highest smoking dose may reflect the propensity for risk taking behaviors associated with additional confounding by substance abuse (such as alcohol), which may not have been adequately adjusted for. The effect of the highest smoking dose on CL/P etiology should be interpreted with caution as the number of cases within the individual studies were less than for low and medium smoking doses, therefore the effect estimates were less precise.

Historically, CL/P has been subdivided in to CL±P and CP, reflecting different embryological origins from the primary palate and secondary palate respectively (Dixon et al., 2011). Studies included in this review reported individual outcomes for CL±P and CP and the respective pooled ORs demonstrated a moderately positive association with maternal smoking, similar to that of OFC. The pooled OR for CP (OR = 1.49) was greater than for CL±P (OR = 1.31) and this is an inverse of the relationship reported in two previous meta-analyses (Little et al., 2004; Xuan et al., 2016). The pooled OR for CP reported in this review should be interpreted with caution as it was influenced by the outlying result of a single study (Ács et al., 2020), with a heterogeneity between studies present. The only study with a good quality rating included in the CP meta-analysis (Raut et al., 2019), reported a more modest measure of effect, therefore the pooled OR following exclusion of the outlying study (OR = 1.25) may be a more accurate representation of the effect of smoking on CP etiology.

Strengths and Limitations

Strengths of this review include a comprehensive search strategy with concerted efforts made to include all languages and a wide variety of study designs. Thorough assessment of study quality facilitated the inclusion of studies into the meta-analysis only if they met pre-defined threshold criteria.

The main limitation of interpreting the results from the meta-analysis relate to the inherent flaws of the standard analytical cohort and case-control approaches and their associated potential for bias. Studies were included in the meta- analysis if they had adjusted for a minimum set of confounders (maternal age and maternal alcohol consumption), which means that there was scope for additional important confounding factors to be unaccounted for. Even when adjustment for all relevant confounding factors is performed, bias may be present due to inaccurate measurement of confounding factors, misclassifications of exposure and differential missing data (Lawlor et al., 2016). The small sample sizes of some studies included in the meta-analysis meant their effect estimates were imprecise. A dose-response relationship could not be tested in CL±P and CP outcomes due to differences in smoking dose categorization reported in the included studies. Restriction of the search to published studies could have introduced publication bias, despite the evidence for publication bias being weak. This review focused upon active cigarette smoking in females and whilst the association of both passive and paternal smoking on CL/P has been reported, there has been less scientific focus in these areas when compared to active maternal smoking (Savitz et al., 1991; Krapels et al. 2008; Figueiredo et al. 2015; Hao et al. 2015; Sabbagh et al. 2015).

Interpretation

Our understanding of the causal role of maternal smoking in CL/P is limited because of biases affecting traditional observational methods and the impracticalities of performing randomized controlled trials in this setting. If our reported moderate association is an accurate reflection of the role that maternal smoking plays then we would predict that the elimination of this risk factor would result in the reduction of 8,000 less cases per year worldwide as it is estimated that 200,000 children are born with CL/P per year (Mossey et al., 2009; The Central Intelligence Agency, 2021). This estimation is based on a 14% prevalence of maternal smoking in case mothers, originating from high income country publications, whereas the World Health Organisation estimates 17% of the global population use tobacco products, mostly from low and middle income countries (World Health Organisation, 2020).

The potential for maternal smoking to play a moderate role in CL/P etiology fits within our current understanding about the cause of CL/P being complex, multifactorial and involving both environmental and genetic factors (Dixon et al. 2011). Gene-environment interactions between smoking and CL/P have been the focus of a number of studies over the last two decades and these have improved our understanding of the pathogenesis of CL/P (Vieira, 2008; Krapels et al., 2008; Beaty et al., 2016; Garland et al., 2020). If smoking only accounts for 4% of the population attributable fraction, the environmental and genetic factors accounting for the remaining 96%, and the interplay between them, remains to be defined.

Recommendations / implications for practice/policy/ further research

This review seeks to address an important public health question regarding the role of maternal smoking in CL/P etiology. Tobacco use is still common worldwide in pregnancy and is the focus of campaigns by the World Health Organisation to reduce adverse health effects on woman and infants (World Health Organisation, 2013). The neonatal health risk associated with maternal smoking were highlighted to the public in 2014 by the U.S Surgeon General’s Report, with smoking reported to increase the risk of CL/P by 30-50% (United States Department of Health and Human Services, 2014). Focus group research has highlighted the difficulties of changing smoking behaviors in pregnant women but suggests educational information with pictorial representation of babies risk may be an effective motivational method (Levis et al., 2014).

The methodologies used by the 45 eligible studies were all conventional observational design (cohort or case control designs). To strengthen our understanding of the causal role of maternal smoking in CL/P, this review highlights the need for high quality studies using a variety of methodological approaches with different directions of bias (Pearce et al., 2019). An instrumental variable model using genetic variants as proxies for smoking has been used in the past to assess the effect of maternal smoking on CL/P risk and reported a substantially stronger positive effect than traditional analytic studies, but the genetic variants used were not strongly associated with smoking and the sample size was small (Wehby et al., 2011). More powerful studies, using multiple novel epidemiological designs that can overcome some of the limitations of traditional methods are required and have been used as part of a triangulated approach to further the understanding of the causal role of cigarette smoking for other health outcomes (Gage et al., 2020).

Data Availability

Secondary data published in the public domain used for this systematic review

Financial support

MF is supported by the VTCT Foundation for a research fellowship with the Cleft Collective at the University of Bristol

KD is supported by a PhD studentship from the MRC Integrative Epidemiology Unit at the University of Bristol (faculty matched place for MRC and Peter and Jean James Scholarship)

SL is supported by a project grant from the Medical Research Council (MR/T002093/1)

Abbreviations

CI
Confidence Interval
CL±P
Cleft Lip ± Palate
CP
Cleft Palate Only
NOS
Newcastle Ottawa Scale
CL/P
Cleft lip and/or cleft palate
OR
Odds Ratio
PAF
Proportional Attributable Fraction

Supplementary Figure Legends

Supplementary Figure 1:
Supplementary Figure 1:

Medline search strategy

Supplementary Figure 2:
Supplementary Figure 2:

Embase search strategy

Supplementary Figure 3:
Supplementary Figure 3:

Web of Science search strategy

Supplementary Figure 4:
Supplementary Figure 4:

Cochrane search strategy

Supplementary Figure 5:
Supplementary Figure 5:

Funnel plots to test publication bias for studies included in this review. The studies have been categorized depending the outcome reported: A) Cleft lip and/or palate; B) Cleft lip ± palate; C) Cleft Palate Only

Supplementary Figure 6:
Supplementary Figure 6:

Forest plot to display the individual study measures of effect and pooled analysis for all studies included in this review reporting cleft lip and/or palate outcome.

Supplementary Figure 7:
Supplementary Figure 7:

Forest plot to display the individual study measures of effect and pooled analysis for all studies included in this review reporting cleft lip ± palate outcome.

Supplementary Figure 8:
Supplementary Figure 8:

Forest plot to display the individual study measures of effect and pooled analysis for all studies included in this review reporting cleft palate only outcome.

View this table:
Supplementary Table 1:

PRISMA 2009 Checklist for the systematic review and metaanalysis

View this table:
Supplementary Table 2:

Criteria for including or excluding papers

View this table:
Supplementary Table 3:

The Assignment of Stars for Study Quality using the Newcastle Ottawa Scale

View this table:
Supplementary Table 4:

Articles Excluded at the Full Text Screening Stage and Reasons for Exclusion

View this table:
Supplementary Table 5:

Confounding Factors Adjusted For in All Included Studies

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Emma Place, Bristol Dental School Librarian, for her help with this study

REFERENCES

  1. ↵
    Ács L, Bányai D, Nemes B, Nagy K, Ács N, Bánhidy F, Rózsa N. Maternal-Related Factors in the Origin of Isolated Cleft Palate—A Population-Based Case- Control Study. Orthodont Craniofac Res. 2020;23:174–180.
    OpenUrl
  2. Angulo-Castro E, Acosta-Alfaro LF, Guadron-Llanos AM, Canizalez-Román A, Gonzalez-Ibarra F, Osuna-Ramírez I, Murillo-Llanes J. Maternal Risk Factors Associated with the Development of Cleft Lip and Cleft Palate in Mexico: A Case-Control Study. Iran J Otorhinolaryngol. 2017;29:189–195.
    OpenUrl
  3. Auslander A, McKean-Cowdin R, Brindopke F, Sylvester B, DiBona M, Magee K, Kapoor R, Conti DV, Rakotoarison S, Magee W. The Role of Smoke from Cooking Indoors over an Open Flame and Parental Smoking on the Risk of Cleft Lip and Palate: A Case- Control Study in 7 Low-Resource Countries. J Glob Health. 2020:10:020410.
  4. ↵
    Badovinac RL, Werler MM, Williams PL, Kelsey KT, Hayes C. Folic Acid- Containing Supplement Consumption during Pregnancy and Risk for Oral Clefts: A Meta-Analysis. Birth Defects Res A Clin Mol Teratol. 2007;79:8–15.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  5. Beaty TH, Wang H, Hetmanski JB, Fan YT, Zeiger JS, Liang KY, Chiu YF, Vanderkolk CA, Seifert KC, Wulfsberg EA Raymond G, Panny SR, McIntosh I. A Case-Control Study of Nonsyndromic Oral Clefts in Maryland. Ann Epidemiol 2001;11: 434–442.
    OpenUrl
  6. ↵
    Beaty TH, Marazita ML, Leslie EJ. Genetic Factors Influencing Risk to Orofacial Clefts: Today’s Challenges and Tomorrow’s Opportunities. F1000Res. 2016;5:2800
    OpenUrl
  7. Bezerra JF, Oliveiran GHM, Soares CD, Cardoso ML, Ururahy MAG, Neto FPF, Lima-Neto LG, Luchessi AD, Silbiger VN, Fajardo CM, de Oliveira SR, Almeida MG, Hirata RDC, de Rezende AA, Hirata MH. Genetic and Non-Genetic Factors That Increase the Risk of Non-Syndromic Cleft Lip and/or Palate Development. Oral Dis. 2015;21:393–399.
    OpenUrl
  8. Bille c, Olsen J, Vach W, Knudsen VK, Olsen SF, Rasmussen K, Murray JC, Andersen AMN, Christensen K. Oral Clefts and Life Style Factors - A Case- Cohort Study Based on Prospective Danish Data. Eur J Epidemiol. 2007;22:173–181.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  9. ↵
    Bille C, Skytthe A, Vach W, Knudsen LB, Andersen AMN, Murray JC, Christensen K. 2005. Parent’s Age and the Risk of Oral Clefts. Epidemiol. 2005;16:311–316.
    OpenUrl
  10. ↵
    Carreras-Torres R, Johansson M, Haycock PC, Relton CL, Davey Smith G, Brennan P, Martin RM. Role of Obesity in Smoking Behaviour: Mendelian Randomisation Study in UK Biobank. BMJ. 2018;361.k1767
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  11. Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. Systematic Reviews: CRD’s Guidance for Undertaking Reviews in Health Care. Univeristy of York, 2009: York Publishing Services.
  12. Chevrier C, Bahuau M, Perret C, Iovannisci DM, Nelva A, Herman C, Vazquez MP, Francannet C, Robert-Gnansia E, Lammer EJ, Cordier S. Genetic Susceptibilities in the Association between Maternal Exposure to Tobacco Smoke and the Risk of Nonsyndromic Oral Cleft. Am J Med Genet A 2008;146A: 2396–2406.
  13. Chung KC, Kowalski CP, Kim HM, Buchman SR. Maternal Cigarette Smoking during Pregnancy and the Risk of Having a Child with Cleft Lip/Palate. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2000;105:485–491.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  14. ↵
    Crossan E, Duane B. Is There an Association between Maternal Smoking and Oral Clefts? Evid Based Dent. 2018;19:24–25.
    OpenUrl
  15. DeRoo LA, Gaudino JA, Edmonds LD. Orofacial Cleft Malformations: Associations with Maternal and Infant Characteristics in Washington State. Birth Defects Res A Clin Mol Teratol. 2003;67(9):637–642.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  16. ↵
    Dixon MJ, Marazita ML, Beaty TH, Murray JC. Cleft Lip and Palate: Understanding Genetic and Environmental Influences. Nat Rev Genet. 2011;12:167–178.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  17. Ebadifar A, Hamedi R, Khorramkhorshid HR, Kamali K, Moghadam FA. Parental Cigarette Smoking, Transforming Growth Factor-Alpha Gene Variant and the Risk of Orofacial Cleft in Iranian Infants. Iran J Basic Med Sci. 2016;19:366– 373.
    OpenUrl
  18. ↵
    Figueiredo JC, Ly S, Magee KS, Ihenacho U, Baurley JW, Sanchez-Lara PA, Brindopke F, Nguyen THD, Nguyen V, Tangco MI, Giron M, Abrahams T, Jang G, Vu A, Zolfaghari E, Yao CA, Foong A, DeClerk YA, Samet JM, Magee W III. Parental Risk Factors for Oral Clefts among Central Africans, Southeast Asians, and Central Americans. Birth Defects Res A Clin Mol Teratol. 2015;103: 863–879.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. ↵
    Gage SH, Sallis HM, Lassi G, Wootton RE, Mokrysz C, Davey Smith G, Munafò MR. Does Smoking Cause Lower Educational Attainment and General Cognitive Ability? Triangulation of Causal Evidence Using Multiple Study Designs. Psychol Med. 2020;1–9:Online ahead of print
  20. ↵
    Garland MA, Sun B, Zhang S, Reynolds K, Ji Y, Zhou CJ. Role of Epigenetics and MiRNAs in Orofacial Clefts. Birth Defects Res. 2020;112:1635–1659
    OpenUrl
  21. ↵
    Grewal J, Carmichael SL, Ma C, Lammer EJ, Shaw GM. Maternal Periconceptional Smoking and Alcohol Consumption and Risk for Select Congenital Anomalies. Birth Defects Res A Clin Mol Teratol 2008;82:519–526.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  22. Gunnerbeck A, Bonamy AKE, Wikström AK, Granath F, Wickström R, Cnattingius S. Maternal Snuff Use and Smoking and the Risk of Oral Cleft Malformations - A Population-Based Cohort Study. PLoS ONE. 2014;9:e84715
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  23. ↵
    Hackshaw A, Rodeck C, Boniface S. Maternal Smoking in Pregnancy and Birth Defects: A Systematic Review Based on 173 687 Malformed Cases and 11.7 Million Controls. Hum Reprod Update. 2011;17:589–604
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  24. ↵
    Hao Y, Tian S, Jiao X, Mi N, Zhang B, Song T, An L, Zheng X, Zhuang D. Association of Parental Environmental Exposures and Supplementation Intake with Risk of Nonsyndromic Orofacial Clefts: A Case-Control Study in Heilongjiang Province, China. Nutrients. 2015;7:7172–7184.
    OpenUrl
  25. ↵
    Harrer M, Cuijpers P, Furukawa TA, Ebert DD. Doing Meta-Analysis in R: A Hands-on Guide. Available at: https://bookdown.org/MathiasHarrer/Doing_Meta_Analysis_in_R/. Accessed February 9, 2021.
  26. ↵
    Honein MA, Devine O, Grosse SD, Reefhuis J. Prevention of Orofacial Clefts Caused by Smoking: Implications of the Surgeon General’s Report. Birth Defects Res A Clin Mol Teratol. 2014;100:822–825.
    OpenUrl
  27. ↵
    Honein MA, Rasmussen SA, Reefhuis J, Romitti PA, Lammer EJ, Sun L, Correa A. Maternal Smoking and Environmental Tobacco Smoke Exposure and the Risk of Orofacial Clefts. Epidemiology. 2007;18:226–233.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  28. Hwang SJ, Beaty TH, Panny SR, Street NA, Joseph JM, Gordon S, Mcintosh I, Francomano CA. Association Study of Transforming Growth Factor Alpha (TGFα) Taqi Polymorphismand Oral Clefts: Indication of Gene-Environment Interaction in a Population-Based Sample of Infants with Birth Defects. Am J Epidemiol. 1995;142:629–636.
    OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
  29. Ibarra-Lopez JJ, Duarte P, Antonio-Vejar V, Calderon-Aranda ES, Huerta-Beristain G, Flores-Alfaro E, Moreno-Godinez ME. Maternal C677T MTHFR Polymorphism and Environmental Factors Are Associated with Cleft Lip and Palate in a Mexican Population. J Investig Med. 2013;61:1030–1035.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  30. ↵
    Izedonmwen OM, Cunningham C, Macfarlane TV. What Is the Risk of Having Offspring with Cleft Lip/Palate in Pre-Maternal Obese/Overweight Women When Compared to Pre-Maternal Normal Weight Women? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J Oral Maxillofac Res. 2015;6:1–22.
    OpenUrl
  31. Källén K. Maternal Smoking and Orofacial Clefts. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 1997;34:11–16.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  32. Khoury MJ, Gomez-Farias M, Mulinare J. Does Maternal Cigarette Smoking During Pregnancy Cause Cleft Lip and Palate in Offspring? Am J Dis Child. 1989;143: 333–337.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  33. ↵
    Krapels IPC, Raijmakers-Eichhorn J, Peters WHM, Roelofs HMJ, Ras F, Steegers- Theunissen RPM. The I105V Polymorphism in Glutathione S-Transferase P1, Parental Smoking and the Risk for Nonsyndromic Cleft Lip with or without Cleft Palate. Eur J Hum Genet. 2008;16: 358–366.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  34. Krapels IPC, Zielhuis GA, Vroom F, De Jong-Van Den Berg LTW, Kuijpers-Jagtman AM, Van Der Molen ABM, Steegers-Theunissen RPM. Periconceptional Health and Lifestyle Factors of Both Parents Affect the Risk of Live-Born Children with Orofacial Clefts. Birth Defects Res A Clin Mol Teratol. 2006;76:613–620.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  35. ↵
    Krueger JK, Rohrich RJ. Clearing the Smoke: The Scientific Rationale for Tobacco Abstention with Plastic Surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2001;108 :1063–1073.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  36. ↵
    Lawlor DA, Tilling K, Davey Smith G. Triangulation in Aetiological Epidemiology. Int J Epidemiol. 2016;45:1866–1886.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  37. ↵
    Lebby KD, Tan F, Brown CP. Maternal Factors and Disparities Associated with Oral Clefts. Ethn Dis. 2010;20:S1–146-9
    OpenUrl
  38. ↵
    Leite I, Paumgartten F, Koifman S. Chemical Exposure during Pregnancy and Oral Clefts in Newborns. Cad Saude Publica. 2002;18:17–31.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  39. Leite ICG, Koifman S. Oral Clefts, Consanguinity, Parental Tobacco and Alcohol Use: A Case-Control Study in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Braz Oral Res. 2009;23: 31–37.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  40. Leite M, Albieri V, Kjaer Sk, Jensen A. Maternal Smoking in Pregnancy and Risk for Congenital Malformations: Results of a Danish Register-Based Cohort Study. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2014;93:825–834.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  41. ↵
    Levis DM, Stone-Wiggins B, O’Hegarty M, Tong VT, Polen KND, Cassell CH, Council M. Women’s Perspectives on Smoking and Pregnancy and Graphic Warning Labels. Am J Health Behav. 2014;38:755–764.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  42. Lie RT, Wilcox AJ, Taylor J, Gjessing HK, Saugstad OD, Aabyholm F, Vindenes H. Maternal Smoking and Oral Clefts the Role of Detoxification Pathway Genes.” Epidemiology. 2008;19:606–615.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  43. Lieff S, Olshan AF, Werler M, Strauss RP, Smith J, Mitchell A. Maternal Cigarette Smoking during Pregnancy and Risk of Oral Clefts in Newborns. Am J Epidemiol. 1999;150:683–694.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  44. ↵
    Little J, Cardy A, Arslan MT, Gilmour M, Mossey PA. Smoking and Orofacial Clefts: A United Kingdom-Based Case-Control Study. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2004;41:381–386.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  45. Little J, Cardy A, Munger RG. Tobacco Smoking and Oral Clefts: A Meta-Analysis. Bull World Health Organ. 2004;82:213–218.
    OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
  46. Liu Y, Wang B, Li Z, Zhang L, Liu J, Ren A. Indoor Air Pollution and the Risk of Orofacial Clefts in a Rural Population in Shanxi Province, China. Birth Defects Res A Clin Mol Teratol. 2016;106:708–715.
    OpenUrl
  47. Lorente C, Cordier S, Goujard J, Aymé S, Bianchi F, Calzolari E, De Walle HEK, Knill-Jones R. Tobacco and Alcohol Use during Pregnancy and Risk of Oral Clefts. Am J Public Health. 2000;90:415–419.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  48. Malloy MH, Kleinman JC, Bakewell JM, Schramm WF, Land GH. Maternal Smoking during Pregnancy: No Association with Congenital Malformations in Missouri 1980-83. Am J Public Health. 1989;79:1243–1246.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  49. ↵
    Mansournia MA, Altman DG. Population Attributable Fraction. BMJ 2018;360:2– 3.
    OpenUrl
  50. ↵
    Martelli DRB, Coletta RD, Oliveira EA, Swerts MSO, Rodrigues LAM, Oliveira MC, Martelli H. Association between Maternal Smoking, Gender, and Cleft Lip and Palate. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol. 2015;81:514–519.
    OpenUrl
  51. McDonald AD, Armstrong BG, Sloan M. Cigarette, Alcohol, and Coffee Consumption and Congenital Defects. Am J Public Health. 1992;82:91–93.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  52. Meyer KA, Williams P, Hernandez-Diaz S, Cnattingius S. Smoking and the Risk of Oral Clefts: Exploring the Impact of Study Designs. Epidemiology 2004;15:671–678.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  53. ↵
    Miettinen OS. Proportion of Disease Caused or Prevented by a given Exposure, Trait or Intervention. Am J Epidemiol. 1974;99:325–332.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  54. Mirilas P, Mentessidou A, Kontis E, Asimakidou M, Moxham BJ, Petropoulos AS, Emmanouil-Nikolousi EN. Parental Exposures and Risk of Nonsyndromic Orofacial Clefts in Offspring: A Case-Control Study in Greece. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2011;75:695–699.
    OpenUrl
  55. ↵
    Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. PLoS Med. 2009;6:e1000097
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  56. ↵
    Molina-Solana R, Yáñez-Vico RM, Iglesias-Linares A, Mendoza-Mendoza A, Solano-Reina E. Current Concepts on the Effect of Environmental Factors on Cleft Lip and Palate. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2013;42:177–184
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  57. ↵
    Mossey PA, Little J, Munger RG, Dixon MJ, Shaw WC. Cleft Lip and Palate. Lancet 2009;374:1773–1785.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  58. ↵
    Ouzzani M, Hammady H, Fedorowicz Z, Elmagarmid A. Rayyan-a Web and Mobile App for Systematic Reviews. Syst Rev. 2016;5:1–10.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  59. ↵
    Pearce N, Vandenbroucke JP, Lawlor DA. Causal Inference in Environmental Epidemiology: Old and New Approaches. Epidemiology. 2019;30:311–316.
    OpenUrl
  60. Popay J, Roberts H, Sowden A, Petticrew M, Arai L, Rodgers M, Britten N. Narrative Synthesis in Systematic Reviews: A Product from the ESRC Methods Programme.” ESRC Methods Programme. Available at: https://www.lancaster.ac.uk/media/lancaster-university/content-assets/documents/fhm/dhr/chir/NSsynthesisguidanceVersion1-April2006.pdf. Accessed February 9, 2021
  61. ↵
    Raut JR, Simeone RM, Tinker SC, Canfield MA, Day RS, Agopian AJ. Proportion of Orofacial Clefts Attributable to Recognized Risk Factors. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2019;56:151–158.
    OpenUrl
  62. Regina AS, Borges AH, de Saboia Campos Neves AT, Aranha AMF, Borba AM, Espinosa MM, Volpato LER. Influence of Parental Exposure to Risk Factors in the Occurrence of Oral Clefts. J Dent (Shiraz). 2020;21:119–126.
    OpenUrl
  63. ↵
    Sabbagh HJ, Hassan MHA, Innes NPT, Elkodary HM, Little J, Mossey PA. Passive Smoking in the Etiology of Non-Syndromic Orofacial Clefts: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. PLoS ONE. 2015;10:e0116963
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  64. Salihu S, Krasniqi B, Sejfija O, Heta N, Salihaj N, Gecaj-Gashi A, Sejdini M, Arifi H, Isufi R, Ueeck BA. Analysis of Potential Oral Cleft Risk Factors in the Kosovo Population. Int Surg. 2014;99:161–165.
    OpenUrl
  65. ↵
    Sato Y, Yoshioka E, Saijo Y, Miyamoto T, Sengoku K, Azuma H, Tanahashi Y, Ito Y, Kobayashi S, Minatoya M, Bamai YA, Yamazaki K, Itoh S, Miyashita C, Araki A, Kishi R. Population Attributable Fractions of Modifiable Risk Factors for Nonsyndromic Orofacial Clefts: A Prospective Cohort Study From the Japan Environment and Children’s Study. J Epidemiol. 2020; Online ahead of print
  66. ↵
    Savitz DA, Schwingl PJ, Keels MA. Influence of Paternal Age, Smoking, and Alcohol Consumption on Congenital Anomalies. Teratology 1991;44:429–440.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  67. Shaw GM, Wasserman CR, Lammer EJ, O’Malley CD, Murray JC, Basart AM, Tolarova MM. Orofacial Clefts, Parental Cigarette Smoking, and Transforming Growth Factor-Alpha Gene Variants. Am J Hum Genet. 1996;58:551–561.
    OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
  68. ↵
    Shi M, Christensen K, Weinberg CR, Romitti P, Bathum L, Lozada A, Morris RW, Lovett M, Murray JC. Orofacial Cleft Risk Is Increased with Maternal Smoking and Specific Detoxification-Gene Variants. Am J Hum Genet. 2007;80:76–90.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  69. Shiono PH, Klebanoff MA, Berendes HW. Congenital Malformations and Maternal Smoking during Pregnancy. Teratology. 1986;34:65–71.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  70. ↵
    Sterne JAC, Sutton AJ, Ioannidis JPA, Terrin N, Jones DR, Lau J, Carpenter J, Rucker G, Harbord RM, Schmid CH, Tetzlaff J, Deeks JJ, Peters J, Macaskill P, Schwarzer G, Duval S, Altman DG, Mohler D, Higgins JPT. Recommendations for Examining and Interpreting Funnel Plot Asymmetry in Meta-Analyses of Randomised Controlled Trials. BMJ. 2011;343:d4002
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  71. ↵
    Taylor AE, Richmond RC, Palviainen T, Loukola A, Wootton RE, Kaprio J, Relton CL, Smith GD, Munafò MR. The Effect of Body Mass Index on Smoking Behaviour and Nicotine Metabolism: A Mendelian Randomization Study. Hum Mol Genet. 2019;28:1322–1330.
    OpenUrl
  72. ↵
    Taylor M, Rode L, Bjørngaard J, Taylor AE, Bojesen SE, Asvold BO, Gabrielsen ME, Lewis G, Nordestgaard BG, Romundstad PR, Hickman M, Munafò MR. Is Smoking Heaviness Causally Associated with Alcohol Use? A Mendelian Randomization Study in Four European Cohorts. Int J Epidemiol. 2018;47:1098–1105.
    OpenUrl
  73. ↵
    The Central Intelligence Agency. The World Factbook. Available at: https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/. Accessed February 9, 2021.
  74. United States Department of Health and Human Services. The Health Consequences of Smoking—50 Years of Progress. A Report of the Surgeon General. 2014. Atlanta, GA. United States Department of Health and Human Services, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health.
  75. Van Den Eeden SK, Karagas MR, Daling JR, Vaughan TL. A Case-control Study of Maternal Smoking and Congenital Malformations. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 1990;4:147–155
    OpenUrlPubMed
  76. ↵
    Vieira AR. Unraveling Human Cleft Lip and Palate Research. J Dent Res. 2008;87:119–125
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  77. Vieira AR., Dattilo S. Oxygen, Left/Right Asymmetry, and Cleft Lip and Palate. J Craniofac Surg. 2018;29:396–399.
    OpenUrl
  78. ↵
    Wehby G, Jugessur A, Murray JC, Moreno LM, Wilcox A, Lie RT. Genes as Instruments for Studying Risk Behavior Effects: An Application to Maternal Smoking and Orofacial Clefts. Health Serv Outcomes Res Methodol. 2011;11:54–78.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  79. Wells G, Shea B, O’Connell D, Pterson J, Welch V, Losos M, Tugwell P. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for Assessing the Quality of Nonrandomised Studies in Meta-Analyses. Available at: http://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.asp. Accessed February 9, 2021
  80. ↵
    World Health Organisation. WHO Recommendations for the Prevention and Management of Tobacco Use and Second-Hand Smoke Exposure in Pregnancy. World Health Organisation; 2013 ISBN 978 92 4 150607 6
  81. Woods SE, Raju U. Maternal Smoking and the Risk of Congenital Birth Defects: A Cohort Study. J Am Board Fam Pract. 2001;14:330–334.
    OpenUrlAbstract
  82. World Health Organisation. Tobacco. Available at: https://www.who.int/health-topics/tobacco/. Accessed February 9, 2021.
  83. ↵
    Wyszynski DF, Duffy DL, Beaty TH. Maternal Cigarette Smoking and Oral Clefts: A Meta-Analysis. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 1997;34:206–210.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  84. Wyszynski DF, Wu T. Use of U.S. Birth Certificate Data to Estimate the Risk of Maternal Cigarette Smoking for Oral Clefting. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2002;39:188–192.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  85. Xu D, Qu WD, Sun C, Cao RY, Liu DW, Du PG. A Study on Environmental Factors for Nonsyndromic Cleft Lip and/or Palate. J Craniofac Surg. 2018;29:364– 367.
    OpenUrl
  86. ↵
    Xuan Z, Zhongpeng Y, Yanjun G, Jiaqi D, Yuchi Z, Bing S, Chenghao L. Maternal Active Smoking and Risk of Oral Clefts: A Meta-Analysis. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol. 2016;122:680–690.
    OpenUrl
  87. Zhang B, Jiao X, Mao L, Xue J. Maternal Cigarette Smoking and the Associated Risk of Having a Child with Orofacial Clefts in China: A Case-Control Study. J CranioMaxillofac Surg. 2011;39:313–318.
    OpenUrlPubMed
Back to top
Posted June 14, 2021.
Download PDF
Data/Code
Email
Maternal cigarette smoking and cleft lip and palate: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Matthew Fell, Kyle Dack, Shaheel Chummun, Jonathan Sandy, Yvonne Wren, Sarah Lewis
medRxiv 2021.06.10.21258688; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.06.10.21258688
Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools

Subject Area