These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: An interrater and intrarater reliability study of 3 photographic scales for the classification of perioral aesthetic features.
    Author: Cohen JL, Thomas J, Paradkar D, Rotunda A, Walker PS, Beddingfield FC, Philip A, Davis PG, Yalamanchili R.
    Journal: Dermatol Surg; 2014 Jun; 40(6):663-70. PubMed ID: 24852471.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND: Validated aesthetic rating scales for the perioral area provide objective evaluations for clinical trials and practice. OBJECTIVE: To confirm the reliability of 3 scales for evaluating dermal filler and neurotoxin treatments of the perioral area. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three lip-specific photographic scales were developed from standardized 2-dimensional images to evaluate Perioral Lines at Rest (POL), Oral Commissures (OCS), and Perioral Lines at Maximum Contraction (POLM) severity scales. Each 4-grade scale (none to severe) had 3 representative images per grade. Physician validators rated volunteers on each scale (2 rounds of live review). Volunteers provided 2 series of self-assessments. Physician and subject intrarater reliability were based on the comparison of round 1 and round 2 scores (mean weighted kappa coefficient). Other measures were physician interrater agreement (intraclass correlation) and subject/physician interrater agreement (Pearson correlation). RESULTS: Physician intrarater agreement was almost perfect or substantial (POL, 0.725; OCS, 0.789; POLM, 0.826). Overall, physician interrater agreement was almost perfect for all 3 scales and ranged from moderate to substantial by grade. Subject intrarater agreement and subject/physician interrater agreement were substantial. CONCLUSION: All scales demonstrated a high degree of intrarater and interrater reliability during the validation process. Physician concordance was good; subject ratings were reliable and comparable to physician assessments.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]