正畸治疗方案与同行评估评级:评估正畸治疗的质量。

IF 1.4 Q3 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE Journal of Orthodontics Pub Date : 2024-08-16 DOI:10.1177/14653125241268763
Jonathan D Shelswell, Brian M Kelly, Trevor M Hodge, Sophy K Barber
{"title":"正畸治疗方案与同行评估评级:评估正畸治疗的质量。","authors":"Jonathan D Shelswell, Brian M Kelly, Trevor M Hodge, Sophy K Barber","doi":"10.1177/14653125241268763","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To apply the Peer Assessment Rating (PAR) to cases that have been assessed by the NHS Business Service Authority (NHSBSA) using the orthodontic treatment protocol (OTO), then compare the NHSBSA outcome assessment with weighted (W) and unweighted (U) PAR scores.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Cross-sectional study.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>UK.</p><p><strong>Cases: </strong>Anonymised orthodontic cases submitted to the NHSBSA.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A sample of 30 reports from 2021/2022 were randomly selected to include different standard of treatment grades. The records were de-identified and the pre- and post-treatment study models were PAR scored by a calibrated assessor.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The mean percentage change in PAR was higher in cases from green reports (W: 78%; U: 79%) than amber (W: 68%; U: 67%) and red reports (W: 65%; U: 65%). Alignment and poor buccal segment interdigitation were the most reported concerns for cases included in the red and amber graded reports. A residual increased overjet was the most common occlusal feature leading to PAR scores not being more than 70% improved. Only slight agreement was shown between OTP and PAR using the kappa statistic, and the chi-square statistical test found that outcome measures are statistically significantly different.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>There are fundamental differences between OTP and PAR, and general agreement between them has not been demonstrated. The NHSBSA Report provides a more critical outcome assessment than PAR, identifying elements that are not assessed or measured by the PAR index.</p>","PeriodicalId":16677,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Orthodontics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Orthodontic treatment protocol versus Peer Assessment Rating: Assessing the quality of orthodontic treatment.\",\"authors\":\"Jonathan D Shelswell, Brian M Kelly, Trevor M Hodge, Sophy K Barber\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/14653125241268763\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To apply the Peer Assessment Rating (PAR) to cases that have been assessed by the NHS Business Service Authority (NHSBSA) using the orthodontic treatment protocol (OTO), then compare the NHSBSA outcome assessment with weighted (W) and unweighted (U) PAR scores.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Cross-sectional study.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>UK.</p><p><strong>Cases: </strong>Anonymised orthodontic cases submitted to the NHSBSA.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A sample of 30 reports from 2021/2022 were randomly selected to include different standard of treatment grades. The records were de-identified and the pre- and post-treatment study models were PAR scored by a calibrated assessor.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The mean percentage change in PAR was higher in cases from green reports (W: 78%; U: 79%) than amber (W: 68%; U: 67%) and red reports (W: 65%; U: 65%). Alignment and poor buccal segment interdigitation were the most reported concerns for cases included in the red and amber graded reports. A residual increased overjet was the most common occlusal feature leading to PAR scores not being more than 70% improved. Only slight agreement was shown between OTP and PAR using the kappa statistic, and the chi-square statistical test found that outcome measures are statistically significantly different.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>There are fundamental differences between OTP and PAR, and general agreement between them has not been demonstrated. The NHSBSA Report provides a more critical outcome assessment than PAR, identifying elements that are not assessed or measured by the PAR index.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16677,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Orthodontics\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Orthodontics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/14653125241268763\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Orthodontics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14653125241268763","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:将同行评估等级(PAR)应用于由英国国家医疗服务体系商业服务管理局(NHSBSA)使用正畸治疗方案(OTO)进行评估的病例,然后将NHSBSA的结果评估与加权(W)和非加权(U)PAR评分进行比较:设计:横断面研究:病例:英国病例:提交给 NHSBSA 的匿名正畸病例:随机抽取了 2021/2022 年的 30 份报告样本,其中包括不同的治疗标准等级。对记录进行去身份化处理,并由校准评估员对治疗前后的研究模型进行 PAR 评分:绿色报告病例(W:78%;U:79%)的平均PAR变化百分比高于黄色报告(W:68%;U:67%)和红色报告(W:65%;U:65%)。在红色和黄色分级报告中,报告最多的问题是对齐和颊板块相互咬合不良。残留的过咬合增加是最常见的咬合特征,导致 PAR 评分的改善率不超过 70%。通过卡方统计,OTP和PAR之间只有轻微的一致性,而通过卡方统计检验,结果测量在统计上有显著差异:结论:OTP 和 PAR 之间存在根本性的差异,两者之间没有显示出普遍的一致性。与 PAR 相比,NHSBSA 报告提供了更严格的结果评估,确定了 PAR 指数没有评估或衡量的要素。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Orthodontic treatment protocol versus Peer Assessment Rating: Assessing the quality of orthodontic treatment.

Objective: To apply the Peer Assessment Rating (PAR) to cases that have been assessed by the NHS Business Service Authority (NHSBSA) using the orthodontic treatment protocol (OTO), then compare the NHSBSA outcome assessment with weighted (W) and unweighted (U) PAR scores.

Design: Cross-sectional study.

Setting: UK.

Cases: Anonymised orthodontic cases submitted to the NHSBSA.

Methods: A sample of 30 reports from 2021/2022 were randomly selected to include different standard of treatment grades. The records were de-identified and the pre- and post-treatment study models were PAR scored by a calibrated assessor.

Results: The mean percentage change in PAR was higher in cases from green reports (W: 78%; U: 79%) than amber (W: 68%; U: 67%) and red reports (W: 65%; U: 65%). Alignment and poor buccal segment interdigitation were the most reported concerns for cases included in the red and amber graded reports. A residual increased overjet was the most common occlusal feature leading to PAR scores not being more than 70% improved. Only slight agreement was shown between OTP and PAR using the kappa statistic, and the chi-square statistical test found that outcome measures are statistically significantly different.

Conclusion: There are fundamental differences between OTP and PAR, and general agreement between them has not been demonstrated. The NHSBSA Report provides a more critical outcome assessment than PAR, identifying elements that are not assessed or measured by the PAR index.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Orthodontics
Journal of Orthodontics DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE-
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
15.40%
发文量
55
期刊介绍: The Journal of Orthodontics has an international circulation, publishing papers from throughout the world. The official journal of the British Orthodontic Society, it aims to publish high quality, evidence-based, clinically orientated or clinically relevant original research papers that will underpin evidence based orthodontic care. It particularly welcomes reports on prospective research into different treatment methods and techniques but also systematic reviews, meta-analyses and studies which will stimulate interest in new developments. Regular features include original papers on clinically relevant topics, clinical case reports, reviews of the orthodontic literature, editorials, book reviews, correspondence and other features of interest to the orthodontic community. The Journal is published in full colour throughout.
期刊最新文献
Orthodontic treatment protocol versus Peer Assessment Rating: Assessing the quality of orthodontic treatment. Accuracy of full arch scans using the iTero Element 2® intra-oral scanner: A clinical study. Orthodontic YouTube™ videos made by patients for patients: What are they about and are they accurate? Effect of verbal and written information on the perception of pain and analgesic consumption, in adolescent orthodontic patients: A randomised controlled trial. Position and root resorption of the incisors following anterior segment retraction using friction versus frictionless mechanics: A randomised controlled trial.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1