McGorray S P, Wheeler T T, Keeling S D, Yurkiewicz L, Taylor M G, King G J
Department of Statistics, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, University of Florida, USA.
Angle Orthod. 1999 Aug;69(4):325-33. doi: 10.1043/0003-3219(1999)069<0325:EOOPOT>2.3.CO;2.
This paper examines the relationship between orthodontists' subjective assessment of treatment need and objective measurements obtained during standardized intra- and extraoral examinations. Logistic regression modeling was used to develop predictive models of treatment need. Data were obtained from 1155 eighth-grade students by four orthodontists who used standardized examination forms to assess demographics, trauma, skeletal relationships, morphologic malocclusion traits, and mandibular function. At the conclusion of the examination, the orthodontist rated the subjective treatment need as none, elective, recommended, soon, or immediate. For some analyses, the categories were collapsed to represent no need and need. The peer assessment rating (PAR) index (American validated version) was computed from the clinical exam findings and scoring of dental models; PAR scores were used to document malocclusion severity and treatment difficulty. Spearman rank correlation coefficients quantified the relationship between PAR scores and need categories. Logistic regression analysis modeled treatment need using components of the PAR index as well as other variables. The components of these models, as well as sensitivity and specificity, were compared with malocclusion severity/treatment difficulty scores obtained from malocclusion assessments using the PAR index. The five subjective treatment need categories and the PAR index scores were significantly correlated (rho = 0.62, p<0.001). Significant differences were detected between the need and no need groups for all PAR components (p<0.001). PAR index scores and predicted probabilities from logistic regression models performed equally well for classification purposes (no need, need). The data suggest that the PAR index is highly correlated with orthodontists' subjective assessment of treatment need when that assessment is made in the absence of financial considerations and patient desires.
本文探讨了正畸医生对治疗需求的主观评估与在标准化口内和口外检查期间获得的客观测量结果之间的关系。采用逻辑回归模型来建立治疗需求的预测模型。数据由四位正畸医生从1155名八年级学生处获取,他们使用标准化检查表格来评估人口统计学信息、创伤情况、骨骼关系、形态学错颌特征以及下颌功能。在检查结束时,正畸医生将主观治疗需求评定为无、选择性、推荐、尽快或立即。对于某些分析,这些类别被合并以表示无需求和有需求。根据临床检查结果和牙模评分计算出同伴评估等级(PAR)指数(美国验证版);PAR分数用于记录错颌严重程度和治疗难度。Spearman等级相关系数量化了PAR分数与需求类别的关系。逻辑回归分析使用PAR指数的组成部分以及其他变量来模拟治疗需求。将这些模型的组成部分以及敏感性和特异性与使用PAR指数从错颌评估中获得的错颌严重程度/治疗难度分数进行比较。五个主观治疗需求类别与PAR指数分数显著相关(rho = 0.62,p<0.001)。在所有PAR组成部分方面,有需求组和无需求组之间均检测到显著差异(p<0.001)。就分类目的而言(无需求、有需求),PAR指数分数和逻辑回归模型的预测概率表现相当。数据表明,在不考虑经济因素和患者意愿进行评估时,PAR指数与正畸医生对治疗需求的主观评估高度相关。