Tags

Type your tag names separated by a space and hit enter

Comparison of Three Methods of Rating Nasolabial Appearance in Cleft Lip and Palate.
Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2017 07; 54(4):400-407.CP

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To investigate which of three methods of rating nasolabial appearance-esthetic index, visual analogue scale (VAS), or numerical scale with reference photographs-is optimal.

DESIGN

Experimental study.

SETTING

Radboud University Medical Centre, The Netherlands and University of Bern, Switzerland.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

Cropped photographs of 60 patients with complete unilateral cleft lip and palate (mean age = 10.8 years) were used for rating. A panel of eight raters rated four components of nasolabial morphology (nasal shape, nose deviation, vermillion border, and profile view) using three methods: 5-point esthetic index, 100 mm VAS, and 0 to 200 numerical scale with reference photographs (reference scores method). Method reliability was assessed by re-evaluation of 20 images after >1 month. Intraclass correlation coefficients were calculated to evaluate consistency of each method.

RESULTS

Overall reference scores method always produced more reproducible results (i.e., higher ICCs) than did VAS or the esthetic index. However, statistically significant differences were found between reference scores and esthetic index in rating nasal shape, nose deviation, and vermillion border only (P < 0.001, <0.001, and 0.012, respectively) and between reference scores and VAS in rating nose deviation and vermillion border (P < 0.001 and 0.017, respectively).

CONCLUSION

We recommend the use of reference photographs along with the VAS or numerical (from 0 to 200) semi-continuous scale. The esthetic index, based on a Likert-type scale, seems to produce the most variable results and, therefore, is not preferred.

Authors

No affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info available

Pub Type(s)

Comparative Study
Journal Article
Multicenter Study

Language

eng

PubMed ID

28140671

Citation

Fudalej, Sylwia A., et al. "Comparison of Three Methods of Rating Nasolabial Appearance in Cleft Lip and Palate." The Cleft Palate-craniofacial Journal : Official Publication of the American Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Association, vol. 54, no. 4, 2017, pp. 400-407.
Fudalej SA, Desmedt D, Bronkhorst E, et al. Comparison of Three Methods of Rating Nasolabial Appearance in Cleft Lip and Palate. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2017;54(4):400-407.
Fudalej, S. A., Desmedt, D., Bronkhorst, E., & Fudalej, P. S. (2017). Comparison of Three Methods of Rating Nasolabial Appearance in Cleft Lip and Palate. The Cleft Palate-craniofacial Journal : Official Publication of the American Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Association, 54(4), 400-407. https://doi.org/10.1597/14-189
Fudalej SA, et al. Comparison of Three Methods of Rating Nasolabial Appearance in Cleft Lip and Palate. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2017;54(4):400-407. PubMed PMID: 28140671.
* Article titles in AMA citation format should be in sentence-case
TY - JOUR T1 - Comparison of Three Methods of Rating Nasolabial Appearance in Cleft Lip and Palate. AU - Fudalej,Sylwia A, AU - Desmedt,Dries, AU - Bronkhorst,Ewald, AU - Fudalej,Piotr S, Y1 - 2017/01/31/ PY - 2017/2/1/pubmed PY - 2018/5/22/medline PY - 2017/2/1/entrez KW - VAS KW - appearance KW - cleft lip KW - cleft palate KW - esthetic index KW - esthetics KW - method KW - rating SP - 400 EP - 407 JF - The Cleft palate-craniofacial journal : official publication of the American Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Association JO - Cleft Palate Craniofac. J. VL - 54 IS - 4 N2 - OBJECTIVE: To investigate which of three methods of rating nasolabial appearance-esthetic index, visual analogue scale (VAS), or numerical scale with reference photographs-is optimal. DESIGN: Experimental study. SETTING: Radboud University Medical Centre, The Netherlands and University of Bern, Switzerland. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Cropped photographs of 60 patients with complete unilateral cleft lip and palate (mean age = 10.8 years) were used for rating. A panel of eight raters rated four components of nasolabial morphology (nasal shape, nose deviation, vermillion border, and profile view) using three methods: 5-point esthetic index, 100 mm VAS, and 0 to 200 numerical scale with reference photographs (reference scores method). Method reliability was assessed by re-evaluation of 20 images after >1 month. Intraclass correlation coefficients were calculated to evaluate consistency of each method. RESULTS: Overall reference scores method always produced more reproducible results (i.e., higher ICCs) than did VAS or the esthetic index. However, statistically significant differences were found between reference scores and esthetic index in rating nasal shape, nose deviation, and vermillion border only (P < 0.001, <0.001, and 0.012, respectively) and between reference scores and VAS in rating nose deviation and vermillion border (P < 0.001 and 0.017, respectively). CONCLUSION: We recommend the use of reference photographs along with the VAS or numerical (from 0 to 200) semi-continuous scale. The esthetic index, based on a Likert-type scale, seems to produce the most variable results and, therefore, is not preferred. SN - 1545-1569 UR - https://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/citation/28140671/Comparison_of_Three_Methods_of_Rating_Nasolabial_Appearance_in_Cleft_Lip_and_Palate_ L2 - http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1597/14-189?url_ver=Z39.88-2003&amp;rfr_id=ori:rid:crossref.org&amp;rfr_dat=cr_pub=pubmed DB - PRIME DP - Unbound Medicine ER -