Oral surgery, oral medicine, oral pathology and oral radiology · 2020
A novel comprehensive scoring system for oral lichen planus: A validity, diagnostic accuracy, and clinical sensitivity study.
СтатьяНазвание 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.
Elsabagh Hossam H, Gaweesh Yasmine Y, Ghonima Jaylane K, Gebril Marwa
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to establish and validate a new scoring system for oral lichen planus (OLP).
STUDY DESIGN: Forty patients with erosive OLP were scored using a new proposed scoring system and the one suggested by Thongprasom. Statistical analysis was used to calculate inter- and intraexaminer reliability, validity, diagnostic accuracy, and clinical sensitivity for both scores.
RESULTS: Concurrent validity showed a significant strong correlation between pain scale and the new score (rs = 0.846) versus Thongprasom's score (rs = 0.665). Interexaminer agreement showed a statistically significant agreement with the biopsy results (kappa = 0.74) for the new score, whereas no agreement was evident with Thongprasom's score (kappa = 0.03163). The diagnostic accuracy of the new score was area under the curve = 0.839, whereas the diagnostic accuracy of Thongprasom's score was area under the curve = 0.667. Significant differences in the scores were detected while comparing the clinical sensitivity of both systems.
CONCLUSIONS: The new comprehensive scoring system could be a valid, reproducible, and sensitive tool to accurately assess the severity of OLP. In addition, the proposed scoring system is easily taught, is relatively faster to master, and does not require complicated calculations.
STUDY DESIGN: Forty patients with erosive OLP were scored using a new proposed scoring system and the one suggested by Thongprasom. Statistical analysis was used to calculate inter- and intraexaminer reliability, validity, diagnostic accuracy, and clinical sensitivity for both scores.
RESULTS: Concurrent validity showed a significant strong correlation between pain scale and the new score (rs = 0.846) versus Thongprasom's score (rs = 0.665). Interexaminer agreement showed a statistically significant agreement with the biopsy results (kappa = 0.74) for the new score, whereas no agreement was evident with Thongprasom's score (kappa = 0.03163). The diagnostic accuracy of the new score was area under the curve = 0.839, whereas the diagnostic accuracy of Thongprasom's score was area under the curve = 0.667. Significant differences in the scores were detected while comparing the clinical sensitivity of both systems.
CONCLUSIONS: The new comprehensive scoring system could be a valid, reproducible, and sensitive tool to accurately assess the severity of OLP. In addition, the proposed scoring system is easily taught, is relatively faster to master, and does not require complicated calculations.