Journal of cranio-maxillo-facial surgery : official publication of the European Association for Cranio-Maxillo-Facial Surgery · 2013
A step backward: the 'Rough' facial nerve grading system.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяВалидационное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Alicandri-Ciufelli Matteo, Piccinini Alessia, Grammatica Alberto, Salafia Francesca, Ciancimino Cristel, Cunsolo Eliomaria, Pingani Luca, Rigatelli Marco, Genovese Elisabetta, Monzani Daniele, Gioacchini Federico Maria, Marchioni Daniele, Presutti Livio
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: Several modalities currently exist to rate the degree of facial function clinically but even though it has significant limitations, the most widely used scale is the House-Brackmann grading system (HBGS). A simplified scale is introduced here, the 'Rough' Grading System (RGS - Grade I: normal movement; Grade II: slight paralysis; Grade III: frank paralysis with eye closure; Grade IV: frank paralysis without eye closure; Grade V: almost complete paralysis with only slight movements; Grade VI: total paralysis). The aim of the present study was to verify the interrater reliability and the interscale validity of this simplified grading system.
STUDY DESIGN: Scale validation study based on a prospective cohort.
METHODS: Fifty patients with facial palsy, consecutively referred to our department were filmed while performing some codified facial movements. Then two independent groups (one rating using the HBGS, the other rating using the RGS) assigned a grade after reviewing the videos. The time required for the rating was also noted.
RESULTS: The HBGS showed a mean value of interrater agreement of 0.46 while the RGS showed a mean value of 0.59. The concurrent validity between HBGS and RGS ranged from 0.86 to 0.90 (p < 0.001 for every comparison). There was no statistically significant difference between HBGS and RGS in the mean time taken for rating (p = 0.15).
CONCLUSIONS: The RGS reached an adequate level of interrater reliability, higher than the HBGS. The correlation between the two scales is high and the times required for rating are similar. The present results may justify the use of the RGS in routine clinical practice.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: N/A.
STUDY DESIGN: Scale validation study based on a prospective cohort.
METHODS: Fifty patients with facial palsy, consecutively referred to our department were filmed while performing some codified facial movements. Then two independent groups (one rating using the HBGS, the other rating using the RGS) assigned a grade after reviewing the videos. The time required for the rating was also noted.
RESULTS: The HBGS showed a mean value of interrater agreement of 0.46 while the RGS showed a mean value of 0.59. The concurrent validity between HBGS and RGS ranged from 0.86 to 0.90 (p < 0.001 for every comparison). There was no statistically significant difference between HBGS and RGS in the mean time taken for rating (p = 0.15).
CONCLUSIONS: The RGS reached an adequate level of interrater reliability, higher than the HBGS. The correlation between the two scales is high and the times required for rating are similar. The present results may justify the use of the RGS in routine clinical practice.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: N/A.