以医生为中心的斜头畸形严重程度颅面不对称指数:评估方法的比较研究。

IF 1.4 4区 医学 Q3 SURGERY Annals of Plastic Surgery Pub Date : 2024-12-05 DOI:10.1097/SAP.0000000000004179
Chien-Han Lee, Ting-Hsuan Lin, Shih-Heng Chen, Meng-Tse Chen, Pin-Ru Chen, Albert J Shih, Chang-Chun Lee, Pang-Yun Chou
{"title":"以医生为中心的斜头畸形严重程度颅面不对称指数:评估方法的比较研究。","authors":"Chien-Han Lee, Ting-Hsuan Lin, Shih-Heng Chen, Meng-Tse Chen, Pin-Ru Chen, Albert J Shih, Chang-Chun Lee, Pang-Yun Chou","doi":"10.1097/SAP.0000000000004179","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Plagiocephaly, wherein infants' head exhibits a diagonal asymmetry, is currently diagnosed based on physicians' subjective judgment. Discrepancies between physician and parent perspectives may result in dissatisfaction with treatment outcomes. This problem highlights the need for an objective assessment system aligning with physician-made clinical diagnoses.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Infant heads were modeled using 3-dimensional scanning techniques. We developed a craniofacial asymmetric index (CAI) based on 10 height planes of heads with varying weight. CAI and traditional craniofacial vault asymmetry index (CVAI) of 10 infants undergoing helmet therapy were compared with 11 craniofacial surgeons' judgment. The Pearson correlation coefficient and Bland-Altman plot were used to determine the correlations and agreement between physicians' judgment and the aforementioned assessment methods. The adjusted intraclass correlation coefficient was calculated to evaluate the reliability of between-physician agreement.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>All 10 infants were divided into the following 3 severity groups: severe, moderate, and mild groups based on craniofacial surgeons' judgment. Notably in CAI, front/back halves of skull and multiangular weighting factors were evaluated. The evaluation revealed perfect alignment in severity classification between the CAI and physicians' judgment, whereas both the CVAI score and MATLAB analysis show varying degrees of difference, 6 and 4 distinct results, respectively. Coefficients of the correlations of physician-assigned scores with the MATLAB analysis, CVAI score, and CAI score were 0.500, 0.833, and 1.000, respectively. Furthermore, Bland-Altman plots revealed the best agreement between CAI and physician-assigned scores.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>CAI closely aligns with the subjective judgment of craniofacial surgeons' assessing the severity of plagiocephaly in infants.</p>","PeriodicalId":8060,"journal":{"name":"Annals of Plastic Surgery","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Physician-Centered Craniofacial Asymmetry Index for the Severity of Plagiocephaly: A Comparative Study of Assessment Methods.\",\"authors\":\"Chien-Han Lee, Ting-Hsuan Lin, Shih-Heng Chen, Meng-Tse Chen, Pin-Ru Chen, Albert J Shih, Chang-Chun Lee, Pang-Yun Chou\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/SAP.0000000000004179\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Plagiocephaly, wherein infants' head exhibits a diagonal asymmetry, is currently diagnosed based on physicians' subjective judgment. Discrepancies between physician and parent perspectives may result in dissatisfaction with treatment outcomes. This problem highlights the need for an objective assessment system aligning with physician-made clinical diagnoses.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Infant heads were modeled using 3-dimensional scanning techniques. We developed a craniofacial asymmetric index (CAI) based on 10 height planes of heads with varying weight. CAI and traditional craniofacial vault asymmetry index (CVAI) of 10 infants undergoing helmet therapy were compared with 11 craniofacial surgeons' judgment. The Pearson correlation coefficient and Bland-Altman plot were used to determine the correlations and agreement between physicians' judgment and the aforementioned assessment methods. The adjusted intraclass correlation coefficient was calculated to evaluate the reliability of between-physician agreement.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>All 10 infants were divided into the following 3 severity groups: severe, moderate, and mild groups based on craniofacial surgeons' judgment. Notably in CAI, front/back halves of skull and multiangular weighting factors were evaluated. The evaluation revealed perfect alignment in severity classification between the CAI and physicians' judgment, whereas both the CVAI score and MATLAB analysis show varying degrees of difference, 6 and 4 distinct results, respectively. Coefficients of the correlations of physician-assigned scores with the MATLAB analysis, CVAI score, and CAI score were 0.500, 0.833, and 1.000, respectively. Furthermore, Bland-Altman plots revealed the best agreement between CAI and physician-assigned scores.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>CAI closely aligns with the subjective judgment of craniofacial surgeons' assessing the severity of plagiocephaly in infants.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":8060,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Annals of Plastic Surgery\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Annals of Plastic Surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/SAP.0000000000004179\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"SURGERY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of Plastic Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/SAP.0000000000004179","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:斜头畸形是指婴儿头部呈对角线不对称,目前的诊断是基于医生的主观判断。医生和家长观点的差异可能导致对治疗结果的不满。这个问题突出表明需要一个客观的评估系统,与医生作出的临床诊断相一致。方法:采用三维扫描技术建立婴儿头部模型。我们开发了一个颅面不对称指数(CAI)基于10个不同重量的头部高度平面。对10例接受头盔治疗婴儿的CAI与传统颅面拱顶不对称指数(CVAI)进行比较,并与11位颅面外科医生的判断结果进行比较。使用Pearson相关系数和Bland-Altman图来确定医生的判断与上述评估方法之间的相关性和一致性。计算校正后的类内相关系数以评估医师间一致性的可靠性。结果:根据颅面外科医生的判断,将10例患儿分为重度、中度、轻度3组。值得注意的是,在CAI中,评估了颅骨的前/后半部分和多角度加权因子。评估结果显示CAI与医生的判断在严重程度分类上完全一致,而CVAI评分和MATLAB分析均显示不同程度的差异,结果分别为6和4。医师分配评分与MATLAB分析、CVAI评分、CAI评分的相关系数分别为0.500、0.833、1.000。此外,Bland-Altman图显示CAI与医生分配的分数之间的最佳一致性。结论:CAI与颅面外科医生对婴儿斜头畸形严重程度的主观判断高度一致。
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
A Physician-Centered Craniofacial Asymmetry Index for the Severity of Plagiocephaly: A Comparative Study of Assessment Methods.

Background: Plagiocephaly, wherein infants' head exhibits a diagonal asymmetry, is currently diagnosed based on physicians' subjective judgment. Discrepancies between physician and parent perspectives may result in dissatisfaction with treatment outcomes. This problem highlights the need for an objective assessment system aligning with physician-made clinical diagnoses.

Methods: Infant heads were modeled using 3-dimensional scanning techniques. We developed a craniofacial asymmetric index (CAI) based on 10 height planes of heads with varying weight. CAI and traditional craniofacial vault asymmetry index (CVAI) of 10 infants undergoing helmet therapy were compared with 11 craniofacial surgeons' judgment. The Pearson correlation coefficient and Bland-Altman plot were used to determine the correlations and agreement between physicians' judgment and the aforementioned assessment methods. The adjusted intraclass correlation coefficient was calculated to evaluate the reliability of between-physician agreement.

Results: All 10 infants were divided into the following 3 severity groups: severe, moderate, and mild groups based on craniofacial surgeons' judgment. Notably in CAI, front/back halves of skull and multiangular weighting factors were evaluated. The evaluation revealed perfect alignment in severity classification between the CAI and physicians' judgment, whereas both the CVAI score and MATLAB analysis show varying degrees of difference, 6 and 4 distinct results, respectively. Coefficients of the correlations of physician-assigned scores with the MATLAB analysis, CVAI score, and CAI score were 0.500, 0.833, and 1.000, respectively. Furthermore, Bland-Altman plots revealed the best agreement between CAI and physician-assigned scores.

Conclusions: CAI closely aligns with the subjective judgment of craniofacial surgeons' assessing the severity of plagiocephaly in infants.

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
13.30%
发文量
584
审稿时长
6 months
期刊介绍: The only independent journal devoted to general plastic and reconstructive surgery, Annals of Plastic Surgery serves as a forum for current scientific and clinical advances in the field and a sounding board for ideas and perspectives on its future. The journal publishes peer-reviewed original articles, brief communications, case reports, and notes in all areas of interest to the practicing plastic surgeon. There are also historical and current reviews, descriptions of surgical technique, and lively editorials and letters to the editor.
期刊最新文献
Changing Perspectives in Mastectomy: The Case for Nipple Preservation. Clinical Outcomes of Gender-Affirming Surgery in Individuals With Connective Tissue Disorders. Hourglass Constriction of a Single Fascicle of the Anterior Interosseous Nerve: A Case Report. Interprogram Differences in Core General, Core Plastic, and Plastic Surgery-Adjacent Training. Simple Approach to Cosmetic Medial Epicanthoplasty: A Modification of the Skin Redraping Method.
×
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