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

Haitham Fathi, mustafa Abdulqader, Omar abdullah
{"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}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:女性弥漫性脱发是一种常见的皮肤病。因此,需要一种简单、快速和定量的评估来帮助诊断。本文提出了一种新的、简单的、快速的评估脱发的方法——基于临床的60秒掉发计数法。目的:评估新的基于临床的改良60秒掉发计数(CBMHFC 60- s)和传统的基于家庭的60秒掉发计数(HBHFC 60- s)在确定弥漫性脱发女性掉发时的偏倚和一致性限制。材料和方法:从伊拉克摩苏尔Al-Salam教学医院招募75名弥漫性脱发妇女,采用两种仪器,新的单读数(CBMHFC 60-S)和传统的三读数(HBHFC 60-S)评估脱发数量。采用效度检验的多阶段统计分析来评价CBMHFC 60-S与HBHFC 60-S的性能。其中包括对两种方法之间差异的估计;相关性与预测;最后使用Bland Altman blot估计准确性(偏差量和一致限度)。p值< 0.05为差异有统计学意义。结果:CBMHFC 60-S与HBFHFC 60-S的平均掉发数差异无统计学意义(p值= 0.06)(15.81±7.16 vs 18.18±8.56)。两个测试之间存在非常显著的线性关系(r = 0.434, p值<0.0001)。回归分析得到如下预测方程[CBMHFC 60-S = 9.21 + 0.36* (HBHFC 60-S)]。Bland-Altman blot结果显示,CBHFC 60-S具有较高的准确性。该计数比HBHFC 60-S计数平均少2.38根。与HBHFC 60-s相比,CBMHFC 60-s的95% CI介于-18.95和14.19之间。结论:新的单读数CBMHFC-60S毛发脱落数估计方法与常规HBHFC-60三次读数平均值相关性强,一致性高(低偏倚、高精度),是一种有效的检验方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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).
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信