“…We obtained literature cases from reports published in English (n = 62). [Lightwood, 1931; Bateman, 1936; Maitland, 1939; Hilliard, 1943; Lund, 1943; Coughlin et al, 1950; Ford et al, 1951; Scott, 1952; Briggs et al, 1953; Fraser and Scriver, 1954; Yakovac, 1954; Cohen et al, 1956; Sheach and Middlemiss, 1956; Armaly, 1957; Phillips, 1957; Brogdon and Crow, 1958; Mosekilde, 1958; van Balen and Santens, 1968; Spranger et al, 1971; Mason and Kozlowski, 1973; Levine et al, 1974; Gilbert et al, 1976; Heselson et al, 1978; Kretzer et al, 1981; Saul and Stevenson, 1982; Connor et al, 1985; Poulos et al, 1988, 1991; Eustis et al, 1990; Gray et al, 1990, 1992; Wardinsky et al, 1990; Castillo‐Taucher et al, 1991; Lenti et al, 1991; Williams et al, 1991; Suzuki et al, 1993; Gendall et al, 1994; Agamanolis and Novak, 1995; Takahashi et al, 1997; Hertzberg et al, 1999; Powers et al, 1999; Steinberg et al, 1999; Khanna et al, 2001]. We excluded certain instances in which review suggested that the proffered diagnosis was implausible or in which documentation was insufficient to confirm that the child did, indeed, have RCP, or in those few instances where the proband likely did not have classical RCP Type I.…”