Inter-rater reliability and clinical utility of the modified ferriman-gallwey scale in routine practice.

IF 3 4区 医学 Q3 ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM
Gynecological Endocrinology Pub Date : 2026-12-31 Epub Date: 2026-06-19 DOI:10.1080/09513590.2026.2692736
Irena Chongaroonngamsang, Phawat Matemanosak, Chitkasaem Suwanrath, Krantarat Peeyananjarassri, Noppasin Khwankaew, Alan Geater
{"title":"Inter-rater reliability and clinical utility of the modified ferriman-gallwey scale in routine practice.","authors":"Irena Chongaroonngamsang, Phawat Matemanosak, Chitkasaem Suwanrath, Krantarat Peeyananjarassri, Noppasin Khwankaew, Alan Geater","doi":"10.1080/09513590.2026.2692736","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To evaluate the reliability and clinical utility of the modified Ferriman-Gallwey (mFG) score in routine practice when applied by clinicians with differing experience and by patients for self-assessment.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this cross-sectional reliability study, 43 reproductive-aged women were assessed for hirsutism. Three clinicians (reproductive endocrinologist, general gynecologist, and resident) independently scored participants using the mFG scale, and patients self-graded their hirsutism. Inter-rater reliability was examined using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) and weighted kappa statistics by body area. Clinical agreement was assessed with Bland-Altman limits of agreement (LOA).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Inter-rater reliability was good (ICC = 0.649), higher between experienced clinicians (ICC = 0.723) and lower when the resident was included (ICC = 0.588). Weighted kappa ranged from 0.118 to 0.832 (highest for chin, lowest for upper back). Bland-Altman analysis showed substantial disagreement: experienced pair bias -0.74 (LOA -6.94 to + 5.46) and less-experienced pair bias + 0.44 (LOA -7.22 to + 8.11). Patient self-scoring showed poor agreement with clinician scoring (ICC = 0.20).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Although clinician scoring demonstrated good statistical reliability, inter-rater differences remained clinically meaningful, with LOA exceeding diagnostic thresholds for hirsutism. Greater experience improved agreement but did not eliminate variability. Patient self-scoring showed low agreement with experts and tended to overestimate severity; however, it may function as a high-sensitivity screening adjunct rather than a substitute for clinician assessment.</p>","PeriodicalId":12865,"journal":{"name":"Gynecological Endocrinology","volume":"42 1","pages":"2692736"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2026-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Gynecological Endocrinology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09513590.2026.2692736","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/6/19 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: To evaluate the reliability and clinical utility of the modified Ferriman-Gallwey (mFG) score in routine practice when applied by clinicians with differing experience and by patients for self-assessment.

Methods: In this cross-sectional reliability study, 43 reproductive-aged women were assessed for hirsutism. Three clinicians (reproductive endocrinologist, general gynecologist, and resident) independently scored participants using the mFG scale, and patients self-graded their hirsutism. Inter-rater reliability was examined using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) and weighted kappa statistics by body area. Clinical agreement was assessed with Bland-Altman limits of agreement (LOA).

Results: Inter-rater reliability was good (ICC = 0.649), higher between experienced clinicians (ICC = 0.723) and lower when the resident was included (ICC = 0.588). Weighted kappa ranged from 0.118 to 0.832 (highest for chin, lowest for upper back). Bland-Altman analysis showed substantial disagreement: experienced pair bias -0.74 (LOA -6.94 to + 5.46) and less-experienced pair bias + 0.44 (LOA -7.22 to + 8.11). Patient self-scoring showed poor agreement with clinician scoring (ICC = 0.20).

Conclusions: Although clinician scoring demonstrated good statistical reliability, inter-rater differences remained clinically meaningful, with LOA exceeding diagnostic thresholds for hirsutism. Greater experience improved agreement but did not eliminate variability. Patient self-scoring showed low agreement with experts and tended to overestimate severity; however, it may function as a high-sensitivity screening adjunct rather than a substitute for clinician assessment.

改良ferriman-gallwey量表在临床实践中的信度及临床应用。
目的:评价改良的Ferriman-Gallwey (mFG)评分在临床实践中被不同经验的临床医生和患者自我评估时的可靠性和临床实用性。方法:在这项横断面可靠性研究中,对43名育龄妇女进行多毛症评估。三位临床医生(生殖内分泌科医生、普通妇科医生和住院医生)使用mFG量表对参与者进行独立评分,患者自行对多毛症进行评分。用类内相关系数(ICC)和体面积加权kappa统计量检验了类间信度。采用Bland-Altman协议限(LOA)评估临床一致性。结果:评估者间信度较好(ICC = 0.649),经验丰富的临床医生间信度较高(ICC = 0.723),住院医师间信度较低(ICC = 0.588)。加权kappa值为0.118 ~ 0.832(下巴最高,上背部最低)。Bland-Altman分析显示了实质性的差异:经验丰富的配对偏差为-0.74 (LOA为-6.94至+ 5.46),经验不足的配对偏差为+ 0.44 (LOA为-7.22至+ 8.11)。患者自我评分与临床评分的一致性较差(ICC = 0.20)。结论:尽管临床医生评分显示出良好的统计可靠性,但评分者之间的差异仍然具有临床意义,LOA超过多毛症的诊断阈值。更多的经验提高了一致性,但并没有消除可变性。患者自我评分与专家的一致性较低,且倾向于高估严重程度;然而,它可能作为一种高灵敏度的筛查辅助手段,而不是临床医生评估的替代品。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Gynecological Endocrinology
Gynecological Endocrinology 医学-妇产科学
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
5.00%
发文量
137
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: Gynecological Endocrinology , the official journal of the International Society of Gynecological Endocrinology, covers all the experimental, clinical and therapeutic aspects of this ever more important discipline. It includes, amongst others, papers relating to the control and function of the different endocrine glands in females, the effects of reproductive events on the endocrine system, and the consequences of endocrine disorders on reproduction
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书