Dermatologic surgery : official publication for American Society for Dermatologic Surgery [et al.] · 2014
An interrater and intrarater reliability study of 3 photographic scales for the classification of perioral aesthetic features.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАВалидационное 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.
Cohen Joel L, Thomas Jane, Paradkar Deepali, Rotunda Adam, Walker Patricia S, Beddingfield Frederick C, Philip Asha, Davis Paula G, Yalamanchili Ramana
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Validated aesthetic rating scales for the perioral area provide objective evaluations for clinical trials and practice.
OBJECTIVE: To confirm the reliability of 3 scales for evaluating dermal filler and neurotoxin treatments of the perioral area.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three lip-specific photographic scales were developed from standardized 2-dimensional images to evaluate Perioral Lines at Rest (POL), Oral Commissures (OCS), and Perioral Lines at Maximum Contraction (POLM) severity scales. Each 4-grade scale (none to severe) had 3 representative images per grade. Physician validators rated volunteers on each scale (2 rounds of live review). Volunteers provided 2 series of self-assessments. Physician and subject intrarater reliability were based on the comparison of round 1 and round 2 scores (mean weighted kappa coefficient). Other measures were physician interrater agreement (intraclass correlation) and subject/physician interrater agreement (Pearson correlation).
RESULTS: Physician intrarater agreement was almost perfect or substantial (POL, 0.725; OCS, 0.789; POLM, 0.826). Overall, physician interrater agreement was almost perfect for all 3 scales and ranged from moderate to substantial by grade. Subject intrarater agreement and subject/physician interrater agreement were substantial.
CONCLUSION: All scales demonstrated a high degree of intrarater and interrater reliability during the validation process. Physician concordance was good; subject ratings were reliable and comparable to physician assessments.
OBJECTIVE: To confirm the reliability of 3 scales for evaluating dermal filler and neurotoxin treatments of the perioral area.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three lip-specific photographic scales were developed from standardized 2-dimensional images to evaluate Perioral Lines at Rest (POL), Oral Commissures (OCS), and Perioral Lines at Maximum Contraction (POLM) severity scales. Each 4-grade scale (none to severe) had 3 representative images per grade. Physician validators rated volunteers on each scale (2 rounds of live review). Volunteers provided 2 series of self-assessments. Physician and subject intrarater reliability were based on the comparison of round 1 and round 2 scores (mean weighted kappa coefficient). Other measures were physician interrater agreement (intraclass correlation) and subject/physician interrater agreement (Pearson correlation).
RESULTS: Physician intrarater agreement was almost perfect or substantial (POL, 0.725; OCS, 0.789; POLM, 0.826). Overall, physician interrater agreement was almost perfect for all 3 scales and ranged from moderate to substantial by grade. Subject intrarater agreement and subject/physician interrater agreement were substantial.
CONCLUSION: All scales demonstrated a high degree of intrarater and interrater reliability during the validation process. Physician concordance was good; subject ratings were reliable and comparable to physician assessments.