创建并验证用于评估双侧面瘫的面瘫量表

IF 1.6 3区 医学 Q2 SURGERY Facial Plastic Surgery & Aesthetic Medicine Pub Date : 2024-10-28 DOI:10.1089/fpsam.2024.0162
Cloe Cabos, Loeiza Gourves, Diane Picard, Elodie Lannadere, Mathilde Calvo, Frederic Tankere, Remi Hervochon, Peggy Gatignol
{"title":"创建并验证用于评估双侧面瘫的面瘫量表","authors":"Cloe Cabos, Loeiza Gourves, Diane Picard, Elodie Lannadere, Mathilde Calvo, Frederic Tankere, Remi Hervochon, Peggy Gatignol","doi":"10.1089/fpsam.2024.0162","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Objectives</b>: House-Brackmann (HB) classification and the Sunnybrook Facial Grading System (SFGS), both reference tools for the assessment of facial palsy, are not suitable for bilateral facial palsy. The aim of this study was to develop, standardize, and validate the Facial Diplegia Scale (FDS). <b>Methods</b>: The FDS was standardized in a healthy population (<i>n</i> = 111) and validated in 40 patients with diplegia. Correlations with the SFGS were sought to prove its criterion validity. The comparison between healthy subjects and patients with diplegia was used to test the construct validity. The diagnostic performance of the FDS was verified using an ROC curve based on the HB classification. Internal and external consistency were investigated. <b>Results</b>: The FDS and the SFGS were significantly correlated for the right hemiface [F(39) = 51.51, <i>p</i> < 0.0001, <i>R</i><sup>2</sup> = 0.575] as well as for the left one [F(39) = 95.10, <i>p</i> < 0.0001, <i>R</i><sup>2</sup> = 0.714]. A significant difference between control subjects and patients with diplegia was found [<i>t</i>(149) = -9.95, <i>p</i> < 0.0001]. Good specificity and sensitivity were confirmed. Finally, internal consistency, inter-rater reliability, and test-retest reliability were largely proven. <b>Conclusions</b>: The FDS has been standardized and validated for the subjective assessment of facial diplegia in adults to improve comprehensive assessment.</p>","PeriodicalId":48487,"journal":{"name":"Facial Plastic Surgery & Aesthetic Medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Creation and Validation of the Facial Diplegia Scale for Assessment of Bilateral Facial Palsy.\",\"authors\":\"Cloe Cabos, Loeiza Gourves, Diane Picard, Elodie Lannadere, Mathilde Calvo, Frederic Tankere, Remi Hervochon, Peggy Gatignol\",\"doi\":\"10.1089/fpsam.2024.0162\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><b>Objectives</b>: House-Brackmann (HB) classification and the Sunnybrook Facial Grading System (SFGS), both reference tools for the assessment of facial palsy, are not suitable for bilateral facial palsy. The aim of this study was to develop, standardize, and validate the Facial Diplegia Scale (FDS). <b>Methods</b>: The FDS was standardized in a healthy population (<i>n</i> = 111) and validated in 40 patients with diplegia. Correlations with the SFGS were sought to prove its criterion validity. The comparison between healthy subjects and patients with diplegia was used to test the construct validity. The diagnostic performance of the FDS was verified using an ROC curve based on the HB classification. Internal and external consistency were investigated. <b>Results</b>: The FDS and the SFGS were significantly correlated for the right hemiface [F(39) = 51.51, <i>p</i> < 0.0001, <i>R</i><sup>2</sup> = 0.575] as well as for the left one [F(39) = 95.10, <i>p</i> < 0.0001, <i>R</i><sup>2</sup> = 0.714]. A significant difference between control subjects and patients with diplegia was found [<i>t</i>(149) = -9.95, <i>p</i> < 0.0001]. Good specificity and sensitivity were confirmed. Finally, internal consistency, inter-rater reliability, and test-retest reliability were largely proven. <b>Conclusions</b>: The FDS has been standardized and validated for the subjective assessment of facial diplegia in adults to improve comprehensive assessment.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48487,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Facial Plastic Surgery & Aesthetic Medicine\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Facial Plastic Surgery & Aesthetic Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1089/fpsam.2024.0162\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"SURGERY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Facial Plastic Surgery & Aesthetic Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1089/fpsam.2024.0162","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:豪斯-布拉克曼(HB)分类法和桑尼布鲁克面部分级系统(SFGS)都是评估面部瘫痪的参考工具,但并不适用于双侧面部瘫痪。本研究旨在开发、标准化并验证面部偏瘫量表(FDS)。方法:在健康人群(n = 111)中对 FDS 进行标准化,并在 40 名面瘫患者中进行验证。为了证明其标准效度,还寻求了与 SFGS 的相关性。健康受试者与偏瘫患者之间的比较用于检验其构造效度。通过基于 HB 分类的 ROC 曲线验证了 FDS 的诊断性能。研究了内部和外部一致性。结果FDS 和 SFGS 在右侧半面[F(39) = 51.51, p < 0.0001, R2 = 0.575]和左侧半面[F(39) = 95.10, p < 0.0001, R2 = 0.714]有显著相关性。对照组与偏瘫患者之间存在明显差异[t(149) = -9.95,p < 0.0001]。良好的特异性和灵敏度得到了证实。最后,内部一致性、评分者之间的可靠性和测试-再测试的可靠性也基本得到了证实。结论:FDS 对成人面部偏瘫的主观评估进行了标准化和验证,以改进综合评估。
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
Creation and Validation of the Facial Diplegia Scale for Assessment of Bilateral Facial Palsy.

Objectives: House-Brackmann (HB) classification and the Sunnybrook Facial Grading System (SFGS), both reference tools for the assessment of facial palsy, are not suitable for bilateral facial palsy. The aim of this study was to develop, standardize, and validate the Facial Diplegia Scale (FDS). Methods: The FDS was standardized in a healthy population (n = 111) and validated in 40 patients with diplegia. Correlations with the SFGS were sought to prove its criterion validity. The comparison between healthy subjects and patients with diplegia was used to test the construct validity. The diagnostic performance of the FDS was verified using an ROC curve based on the HB classification. Internal and external consistency were investigated. Results: The FDS and the SFGS were significantly correlated for the right hemiface [F(39) = 51.51, p < 0.0001, R2 = 0.575] as well as for the left one [F(39) = 95.10, p < 0.0001, R2 = 0.714]. A significant difference between control subjects and patients with diplegia was found [t(149) = -9.95, p < 0.0001]. Good specificity and sensitivity were confirmed. Finally, internal consistency, inter-rater reliability, and test-retest reliability were largely proven. Conclusions: The FDS has been standardized and validated for the subjective assessment of facial diplegia in adults to improve comprehensive assessment.

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
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
30.00%
发文量
159
期刊最新文献
Impact of Proposed Medicare Policy Changes for Botulinum Toxin Coverage on Hemifacial Spasm and Facial Dystonia. Invited Commentary on: "Selective Neurectomy with Regenerative Peripheral Nerve Interface Surgery for Facial Synkinesis," by Gu et al. Selective Neurectomy with Regenerative Peripheral Nerve Interface Surgery for Facial Synkinesis. Comparing Perfusion of Single-Stage and Multi-Staged Paramedian Forehead Flaps Using Indocyanine Green Angiography. Lip Augmentation in Patients with Fitzpatrick Skin Type V and VI: Use of a Validated Lip Fullness Scale and Determining Preinjection Lip Size Preference and Postinjection Patient Satisfaction.
×
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