{"title":"头发脱落计数60秒:基于临床的修改计数与基于家庭的计数","authors":"Haitham Fathi, mustafa Abdulqader, Omar abdullah","doi":"10.33091/amj.2023.139263.1089","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Female diffuse alopecia is a common dermatologic problem. Consequently, a simple, quick, and quantitative assessment is required to aid in diagnosis. A clinic-based modified hair fall count in 60 seconds is proposed as a new, simple, and quick method for evaluating hair loss. Objectives: To assess bias and limit of agreement between the new Clinic-based modified hair fall count in 60 seconds (CBMHFC 60-S) and conventional home-based hair fall count in 60 seconds (HBHFC 60-S) determining hair fall in women with diffuse hair loss. Materials and Methods: Seventy-five women with diffuse alopecia recruited from Al-Salam Teaching Hospital, Mosul, Iraq underwent assessment of hair fall count by using two instruments, new single reading (CBMHFC 60-S) and conventional three reading (HBHFC 60-S). A multistage statistical analysis of validity tests was used to assess the performance of CBMHFC 60-S in comparison to HBHFC 60-S. These included the estimation of the difference between both methods; correlation and prediction; and lastly estimating accuracy (amount of bias and limits of agreement) using Bland Altman blot. A P-value < 0.05 was considered a statistically significant difference. Results: A non-statistically significant difference (P-value = 0.06) in average hair fall count was estimated by CBMHFC 60-S and HBFHFC 60-S (15.81 ± 7.16 vs 18.18 ± 8.56). A very highly significant linear relationship between both tests (r = 0.434, P-value <0.0001). A regression analysis yields the following prediction equation [CBMHFC 60-S = 9.21 + 0.36* (HBHFC 60-S)]. Bland-Altman blot revealed a high accuracy of the CBHFC 60-S. The count was less than HBHFC 60-S count by an average of 2.38 hairs. The 95% CI of CBMHFC 60-s in comparison to HBHFC 60-S will fall between -18.95 and 14.19. Conclusion: The new single reading CBMHFC-60S estimation of hair fall count was a valid test reflected by its strong association with an average of three readings of conventional HBHFC-60 and high concordance (low bias and high precision).","PeriodicalId":378741,"journal":{"name":"Al- Anbar Medical Journal","volume":"57 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Hair Fall Count 60-second: Clinic-Based Modified Count Versus Home-Based Count\",\"authors\":\"Haitham Fathi, mustafa Abdulqader, Omar abdullah\",\"doi\":\"10.33091/amj.2023.139263.1089\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background: Female diffuse alopecia is a common dermatologic problem. Consequently, a simple, quick, and quantitative assessment is required to aid in diagnosis. A clinic-based modified hair fall count in 60 seconds is proposed as a new, simple, and quick method for evaluating hair loss. Objectives: To assess bias and limit of agreement between the new Clinic-based modified hair fall count in 60 seconds (CBMHFC 60-S) and conventional home-based hair fall count in 60 seconds (HBHFC 60-S) determining hair fall in women with diffuse hair loss. Materials and Methods: Seventy-five women with diffuse alopecia recruited from Al-Salam Teaching Hospital, Mosul, Iraq underwent assessment of hair fall count by using two instruments, new single reading (CBMHFC 60-S) and conventional three reading (HBHFC 60-S). A multistage statistical analysis of validity tests was used to assess the performance of CBMHFC 60-S in comparison to HBHFC 60-S. These included the estimation of the difference between both methods; correlation and prediction; and lastly estimating accuracy (amount of bias and limits of agreement) using Bland Altman blot. A P-value < 0.05 was considered a statistically significant difference. Results: A non-statistically significant difference (P-value = 0.06) in average hair fall count was estimated by CBMHFC 60-S and HBFHFC 60-S (15.81 ± 7.16 vs 18.18 ± 8.56). A very highly significant linear relationship between both tests (r = 0.434, P-value <0.0001). A regression analysis yields the following prediction equation [CBMHFC 60-S = 9.21 + 0.36* (HBHFC 60-S)]. Bland-Altman blot revealed a high accuracy of the CBHFC 60-S. The count was less than HBHFC 60-S count by an average of 2.38 hairs. The 95% CI of CBMHFC 60-s in comparison to HBHFC 60-S will fall between -18.95 and 14.19. Conclusion: The new single reading CBMHFC-60S estimation of hair fall count was a valid test reflected by its strong association with an average of three readings of conventional HBHFC-60 and high concordance (low bias and high precision).\",\"PeriodicalId\":378741,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Al- Anbar Medical Journal\",\"volume\":\"57 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-10-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Al- Anbar Medical Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.33091/amj.2023.139263.1089\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Al- Anbar Medical Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.33091/amj.2023.139263.1089","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Hair Fall Count 60-second: Clinic-Based Modified Count Versus Home-Based Count
Background: Female diffuse alopecia is a common dermatologic problem. Consequently, a simple, quick, and quantitative assessment is required to aid in diagnosis. A clinic-based modified hair fall count in 60 seconds is proposed as a new, simple, and quick method for evaluating hair loss. Objectives: To assess bias and limit of agreement between the new Clinic-based modified hair fall count in 60 seconds (CBMHFC 60-S) and conventional home-based hair fall count in 60 seconds (HBHFC 60-S) determining hair fall in women with diffuse hair loss. Materials and Methods: Seventy-five women with diffuse alopecia recruited from Al-Salam Teaching Hospital, Mosul, Iraq underwent assessment of hair fall count by using two instruments, new single reading (CBMHFC 60-S) and conventional three reading (HBHFC 60-S). A multistage statistical analysis of validity tests was used to assess the performance of CBMHFC 60-S in comparison to HBHFC 60-S. These included the estimation of the difference between both methods; correlation and prediction; and lastly estimating accuracy (amount of bias and limits of agreement) using Bland Altman blot. A P-value < 0.05 was considered a statistically significant difference. Results: A non-statistically significant difference (P-value = 0.06) in average hair fall count was estimated by CBMHFC 60-S and HBFHFC 60-S (15.81 ± 7.16 vs 18.18 ± 8.56). A very highly significant linear relationship between both tests (r = 0.434, P-value <0.0001). A regression analysis yields the following prediction equation [CBMHFC 60-S = 9.21 + 0.36* (HBHFC 60-S)]. Bland-Altman blot revealed a high accuracy of the CBHFC 60-S. The count was less than HBHFC 60-S count by an average of 2.38 hairs. The 95% CI of CBMHFC 60-s in comparison to HBHFC 60-S will fall between -18.95 and 14.19. Conclusion: The new single reading CBMHFC-60S estimation of hair fall count was a valid test reflected by its strong association with an average of three readings of conventional HBHFC-60 and high concordance (low bias and high precision).