比较豪斯-布拉克曼分级系统、面神经分级系统 2.0 和桑尼布鲁克面神经分级系统对周围性面瘫患者进行评估的可靠性。

Erdem Mengi, Cüneyt Orhan Kara, Fazıl Necdet Ardıç, Bülent Topuz, Ulaş Metin, Uğur Alptürk, Gökçe Aydemir, Hande Şenol
{"title":"比较豪斯-布拉克曼分级系统、面神经分级系统 2.0 和桑尼布鲁克面神经分级系统对周围性面瘫患者进行评估的可靠性。","authors":"Erdem Mengi, Cüneyt Orhan Kara, Fazıl Necdet Ardıç, Bülent Topuz, Ulaş Metin, Uğur Alptürk, Gökçe Aydemir, Hande Şenol","doi":"10.5152/iao.2024.231162","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>To compare the reliability of the House-Brackmann (HB), Facial Nerve Grading System 2.0 (FNGS 2.0), and Sunnybrook Facial Grading System (SB) which are widely used in the evaluation of peripheral facial paralysis (PFP) patients.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Thirty-five video-recorded adult PFP patients were included in the study. The evaluators comprised 6 physicians. Evaluations were conducted twice independently, utilizing video recordings. Simultaneously, the evaluators were asked to keep time during the evaluation. For the analysis of reliability, Fleiss' kappa coefficient was used for the HB, and the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was used for the FNGS 2.0 and SB.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The mean evaluation time of 1 patient was found to be 1.06 ± 0.24, 1.47 ± 0.23, and 2.32 ± 0.41 minutes for the HB, FNGS 2.0, and SB, respectively. For interrater reliability, Fleiss' kappa for the HB was 0.495 and 0.403; ICC for the FNGS 2.0 was 0.966 and 0.958; ICC for the SB was 0.960 and 0.967 for the first and second measurements, respectively. For intrarater reliability, Fleiss' kappa for the HB was 0.391, 0.446, 0.564, 0.502, 0.626, and 0.455; ICC for the FNGS 2.0 was 0.87, 0.982, 0.966, 0.929, 0.933, and 0.948; ICC for the SB was 0.935, 0.96, 0.895, 0.941, 0.96, and 0.94 for the 6 raters, respectively.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In the present study, statistically high intra- and interrater correlations were found for the FNGS 2.0 and SB, while a moderate correlation was found for the HB. Although the HB seems to be more practical, it has been concluded that the FNGS 2.0 and SB are more reliable.</p>","PeriodicalId":94238,"journal":{"name":"The journal of international advanced otology","volume":"20 1","pages":"14-18"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10895858/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of the Reliability of the House- Brackmann, Facial Nerve Grading System 2.0, and Sunnybrook Facial Grading System for the Evaluation of Patients with Peripheral Facial Paralysis.\",\"authors\":\"Erdem Mengi, Cüneyt Orhan Kara, Fazıl Necdet Ardıç, Bülent Topuz, Ulaş Metin, Uğur Alptürk, Gökçe Aydemir, Hande Şenol\",\"doi\":\"10.5152/iao.2024.231162\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>To compare the reliability of the House-Brackmann (HB), Facial Nerve Grading System 2.0 (FNGS 2.0), and Sunnybrook Facial Grading System (SB) which are widely used in the evaluation of peripheral facial paralysis (PFP) patients.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Thirty-five video-recorded adult PFP patients were included in the study. The evaluators comprised 6 physicians. Evaluations were conducted twice independently, utilizing video recordings. Simultaneously, the evaluators were asked to keep time during the evaluation. For the analysis of reliability, Fleiss' kappa coefficient was used for the HB, and the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was used for the FNGS 2.0 and SB.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The mean evaluation time of 1 patient was found to be 1.06 ± 0.24, 1.47 ± 0.23, and 2.32 ± 0.41 minutes for the HB, FNGS 2.0, and SB, respectively. For interrater reliability, Fleiss' kappa for the HB was 0.495 and 0.403; ICC for the FNGS 2.0 was 0.966 and 0.958; ICC for the SB was 0.960 and 0.967 for the first and second measurements, respectively. For intrarater reliability, Fleiss' kappa for the HB was 0.391, 0.446, 0.564, 0.502, 0.626, and 0.455; ICC for the FNGS 2.0 was 0.87, 0.982, 0.966, 0.929, 0.933, and 0.948; ICC for the SB was 0.935, 0.96, 0.895, 0.941, 0.96, and 0.94 for the 6 raters, respectively.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In the present study, statistically high intra- and interrater correlations were found for the FNGS 2.0 and SB, while a moderate correlation was found for the HB. Although the HB seems to be more practical, it has been concluded that the FNGS 2.0 and SB are more reliable.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":94238,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The journal of international advanced otology\",\"volume\":\"20 1\",\"pages\":\"14-18\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10895858/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The journal of international advanced otology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5152/iao.2024.231162\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The journal of international advanced otology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5152/iao.2024.231162","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:比较广泛用于评估周围性面瘫(PFP)患者的 House-Brackmann (HB)、面神经分级系统 2.0(FNGS 2.0)和 Sunnybrook 面部分级系统(SB)的可靠性:研究纳入了 35 名录制视频的成年 PFP 患者。评估人员由 6 名医生组成。利用录像独立进行了两次评估。同时,要求评估者在评估过程中计时。在可靠性分析中,HB 采用弗莱斯卡帕系数,FNGS 2.0 和 SB 采用类内相关系数 (ICC):HB、FNGS 2.0 和 SB 对一名患者的平均评估时间分别为 1.06 ± 0.24 分钟、1.47 ± 0.23 分钟和 2.32 ± 0.41 分钟。在研究者间可靠性方面,HB 的 Fleiss' kappa 为 0.495 和 0.403;FNGS 2.0 的 ICC 为 0.966 和 0.958;SB 第一次和第二次测量的 ICC 分别为 0.960 和 0.967。在内部可靠性方面,HB 的 Fleiss' kappa 分别为 0.391、0.446、0.564、0.502、0.626 和 0.455;FNGS 2.0 的 ICC 分别为 0.87、0.982、0.966、0.929、0.933 和 0.948;SB 的 6 位评分者的 ICC 分别为 0.935、0.96、0.895、0.941、0.96 和 0.94:在本研究中,FNGS 2.0 和 SB 在统计意义上具有较高的评分者内相关性和评分者间相关性,而 HB 具有中等相关性。虽然 HB 似乎更实用,但结论是 FNGS 2.0 和 SB 更可靠。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparison of the Reliability of the House- Brackmann, Facial Nerve Grading System 2.0, and Sunnybrook Facial Grading System for the Evaluation of Patients with Peripheral Facial Paralysis.

Background: To compare the reliability of the House-Brackmann (HB), Facial Nerve Grading System 2.0 (FNGS 2.0), and Sunnybrook Facial Grading System (SB) which are widely used in the evaluation of peripheral facial paralysis (PFP) patients.

Methods: Thirty-five video-recorded adult PFP patients were included in the study. The evaluators comprised 6 physicians. Evaluations were conducted twice independently, utilizing video recordings. Simultaneously, the evaluators were asked to keep time during the evaluation. For the analysis of reliability, Fleiss' kappa coefficient was used for the HB, and the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was used for the FNGS 2.0 and SB.

Results: The mean evaluation time of 1 patient was found to be 1.06 ± 0.24, 1.47 ± 0.23, and 2.32 ± 0.41 minutes for the HB, FNGS 2.0, and SB, respectively. For interrater reliability, Fleiss' kappa for the HB was 0.495 and 0.403; ICC for the FNGS 2.0 was 0.966 and 0.958; ICC for the SB was 0.960 and 0.967 for the first and second measurements, respectively. For intrarater reliability, Fleiss' kappa for the HB was 0.391, 0.446, 0.564, 0.502, 0.626, and 0.455; ICC for the FNGS 2.0 was 0.87, 0.982, 0.966, 0.929, 0.933, and 0.948; ICC for the SB was 0.935, 0.96, 0.895, 0.941, 0.96, and 0.94 for the 6 raters, respectively.

Conclusion: In the present study, statistically high intra- and interrater correlations were found for the FNGS 2.0 and SB, while a moderate correlation was found for the HB. Although the HB seems to be more practical, it has been concluded that the FNGS 2.0 and SB are more reliable.

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