使用数字模型对GOSLON标尺进行远程在线与现场评分。

IF 1.3 4区 医学 Q2 Dentistry
Supatchai Boonpratham, Ploy Busagornruangrat, Natchalee Srimaneekarn, Theerasak Nakornnoi, Chaiyapol Chaweewannakorn, Yodhathai Satravaha, Supakit Peanchitlertkajorn
{"title":"使用数字模型对GOSLON标尺进行远程在线与现场评分。","authors":"Supatchai Boonpratham, Ploy Busagornruangrat, Natchalee Srimaneekarn, Theerasak Nakornnoi, Chaiyapol Chaweewannakorn, Yodhathai Satravaha, Supakit Peanchitlertkajorn","doi":"10.1177/10556656251359503","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>ObjectivesTo assess the reliability of remote online GOSLON yardstick rating compared to a traditional onsite setting using a photogallery of a 3D dental model.DesignCrossover study.PatientsThe inclusion criteria are patients with a non-syndromic complete unilateral cleft lip and palate, with the models taken during mixed dentition, prior to any orthodontic treatment. 34 patients participated in this study.InterventionsA panel of 3 assessors rated a photogallery of digital models using the GOSLON yardstick in both onsite and remote online settings.Main Outcome MeasurementsThe level of agreement between the two settings, intra- and interrater reliability, was assessed using Cohen's weighted kappa statistics (κ), intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), and Spearman correlation coefficient (ρ).ResultsThe level of agreement between remote online and onsite ratings exhibited a very good level of agreement (κ > 0.83; ICC > 0.95; ρ > 0.94). In addition, intrarater agreement for both rating methods also showed a very good level of agreement (κ > 0.81; ICC > 0.91; ρ > 0.94).ConclusionThis study demonstrated a very good level of agreement and correlation between the GOSLON scores of both viewing settings. This suggests that the difference in the setting, viewing environment, and device does not affect the GOSLON score results. Therefore, remote online rating is as reliable as onsite rating.</p>","PeriodicalId":49220,"journal":{"name":"Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Journal","volume":" ","pages":"10556656251359503"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Remote Online vs. Onsite Rating of GOSLON Yardstick Using Digital Models.\",\"authors\":\"Supatchai Boonpratham, Ploy Busagornruangrat, Natchalee Srimaneekarn, Theerasak Nakornnoi, Chaiyapol Chaweewannakorn, Yodhathai Satravaha, Supakit Peanchitlertkajorn\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/10556656251359503\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>ObjectivesTo assess the reliability of remote online GOSLON yardstick rating compared to a traditional onsite setting using a photogallery of a 3D dental model.DesignCrossover study.PatientsThe inclusion criteria are patients with a non-syndromic complete unilateral cleft lip and palate, with the models taken during mixed dentition, prior to any orthodontic treatment. 34 patients participated in this study.InterventionsA panel of 3 assessors rated a photogallery of digital models using the GOSLON yardstick in both onsite and remote online settings.Main Outcome MeasurementsThe level of agreement between the two settings, intra- and interrater reliability, was assessed using Cohen's weighted kappa statistics (κ), intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), and Spearman correlation coefficient (ρ).ResultsThe level of agreement between remote online and onsite ratings exhibited a very good level of agreement (κ > 0.83; ICC > 0.95; ρ > 0.94). In addition, intrarater agreement for both rating methods also showed a very good level of agreement (κ > 0.81; ICC > 0.91; ρ > 0.94).ConclusionThis study demonstrated a very good level of agreement and correlation between the GOSLON scores of both viewing settings. This suggests that the difference in the setting, viewing environment, and device does not affect the GOSLON score results. Therefore, remote online rating is as reliable as onsite rating.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49220,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Journal\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"10556656251359503\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/10556656251359503\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Dentistry\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10556656251359503","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Dentistry","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的评价远程在线GOSLON量表评分与传统现场设置相比的可靠性。DesignCrossover研究。患者纳入标准为非综合征性完全性单侧唇腭裂患者,在任何正畸治疗之前,在混合牙列期间采用模型。34例患者参与了本研究。干预一个由3名评估人员组成的小组在现场和远程在线设置中使用GOSLON标准对数字模型照片库进行了评分。主要结局测量采用Cohen加权kappa统计量(κ)、类内相关系数(ICC)和Spearman相关系数(ρ)评估两种设置之间的一致性水平,即组内和组间信度。结果远程在线评分与现场评分的一致性水平为非常好的一致性水平(κ > 0.83;ICC > 0.95;ρ > 0.94)。此外,两种评价方法的内部一致性也显示出非常好的一致性(κ > 0.81;ICC > 0.91;ρ > 0.94)。结论本研究表明两种观看环境下的GOSLON评分具有很好的一致性和相关性。这表明设置、观看环境和设备的差异不会影响GOSLON评分结果。因此,远程在线评分与现场评分一样可靠。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Remote Online vs. Onsite Rating of GOSLON Yardstick Using Digital Models.

ObjectivesTo assess the reliability of remote online GOSLON yardstick rating compared to a traditional onsite setting using a photogallery of a 3D dental model.DesignCrossover study.PatientsThe inclusion criteria are patients with a non-syndromic complete unilateral cleft lip and palate, with the models taken during mixed dentition, prior to any orthodontic treatment. 34 patients participated in this study.InterventionsA panel of 3 assessors rated a photogallery of digital models using the GOSLON yardstick in both onsite and remote online settings.Main Outcome MeasurementsThe level of agreement between the two settings, intra- and interrater reliability, was assessed using Cohen's weighted kappa statistics (κ), intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), and Spearman correlation coefficient (ρ).ResultsThe level of agreement between remote online and onsite ratings exhibited a very good level of agreement (κ > 0.83; ICC > 0.95; ρ > 0.94). In addition, intrarater agreement for both rating methods also showed a very good level of agreement (κ > 0.81; ICC > 0.91; ρ > 0.94).ConclusionThis study demonstrated a very good level of agreement and correlation between the GOSLON scores of both viewing settings. This suggests that the difference in the setting, viewing environment, and device does not affect the GOSLON score results. Therefore, remote online rating is as reliable as onsite rating.

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
Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Journal
Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Journal DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE-SURGERY
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
36.40%
发文量
0
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Journal (CPCJ) is the premiere peer-reviewed, interdisciplinary, international journal dedicated to current research on etiology, prevention, diagnosis, and treatment in all areas pertaining to craniofacial anomalies. CPCJ reports on basic science and clinical research aimed at better elucidating the pathogenesis, pathology, and optimal methods of treatment of cleft and craniofacial anomalies. The journal strives to foster communication and cooperation among professionals from all specialties.
×
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