Otolaryngology--head and neck surgery : official journal of American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery · 2006
Sunnybrook and House-Brackmann Facial Grading Systems: intrarater repeatability and interrater agreement.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАВалидационное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Kanerva Mervi, Poussa Tuija, Pitkäranta Anne
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To assess repeatability and agreement of the House-Brackmann (H-B FGS) and the Sunnybrook (SFGS) Facial Grading Systems.
STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Eight video-recorded facial palsy patients were graded in 2 sittings by 28 doctors. Repeatability and agreement for SFGS were measured by intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and coefficient of repeatability (CR), and for H-B FGS by agreement percentage and kappa coefficients.
RESULTS: Repeatability for SFGS was from good to excellent and for H-B FGS from fair to good. Agreement between doctors for SFGS was moderate by CR and nearly perfect by ICC. For H-B FGS, the agreement percentage was 50%, and generalized kappa indicated only fair agreement.
CONCLUSIONS: SFGS was at least as good in repeatability as H-B FGS and showed more reliable results in agreement between doctors.
SIGNIFICANCE: While waiting for an ideal scale for facial grading, the usage of SFGS can be encouraged over H-B FGS.
STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Eight video-recorded facial palsy patients were graded in 2 sittings by 28 doctors. Repeatability and agreement for SFGS were measured by intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and coefficient of repeatability (CR), and for H-B FGS by agreement percentage and kappa coefficients.
RESULTS: Repeatability for SFGS was from good to excellent and for H-B FGS from fair to good. Agreement between doctors for SFGS was moderate by CR and nearly perfect by ICC. For H-B FGS, the agreement percentage was 50%, and generalized kappa indicated only fair agreement.
CONCLUSIONS: SFGS was at least as good in repeatability as H-B FGS and showed more reliable results in agreement between doctors.
SIGNIFICANCE: While waiting for an ideal scale for facial grading, the usage of SFGS can be encouraged over H-B FGS.