Banks Caroline A, Jowett Nate, Hadlock Tessa A
Facial Nerve Center, Division of Facial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Otolaryngology, Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary and Harvard Medical School, Boston.
JAMA Facial Plast Surg. 2017 May 1;19(3):206-211. doi: 10.1001/jamafacial.2016.1620.
Use of a robust high-resolution instrument for grading of facial symmetry would enhance reporting the outcomes of facial reanimation interventions. The eFACE is one such tool.
To determine test-retest reliability of the eFACE tool over time and agreement between eFACE assessments made in person vs those made using video of facial mimetic function.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A prospective observational study was conducted among 75 consecutive patients with varying degrees of facial palsy who presented between July 1 and December 31, 2014, to an academic tertiary referral hospital. Facial symmetry of all patients was graded in person and via standardized photographic and video documentation of facial mimetic function at the initial visit. Three months after initial presentation, eFACE scores were reassessed by the same raters using the videos of facial mimetic function documented at the initial visit.
Individual and subset eFACE scores assessed by 2 facial reanimation surgeons.
Among the 75 patients in the study (mean [SD] age, 48.18 [16.60] years; 30 men and 45 women), agreement between in-person and video assessments of facial function using the eFACE scale was excellent (static subset score: mean difference, 0.19; 95% CI, -1.51 to 1.88; P = .83; intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC], 0.85; 95% CI, 0.80 to 0.89; dynamic subset score: mean difference, -0.51; 95% CI, -1.72 to 0.71; P = .41; ICC, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.94 to 0.97; synkinesis subset score: mean difference, -1.14; 95% CI, -2.87 to 0.59; P = .20; ICC, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.86 to 0.93; and composite score: mean difference, -0.41; 95% CI, -1.30 to 0.47; P = .36; ICC, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.92 to 0.96). Agreement between repeated eFACE assessments of video of facial function was excellent (static subset score: ICC, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.87 to 0.96; dynamic subset score: ICC, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.80 to 0.94; synkinesis subset score: ICC, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.86 to 0.96; and composite score: ICC, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.93 to 0.98).
Strong agreement exists between eFACE scores of facial function assessed in person and from video recordings. Test-retest reliability of eFACE scores is high. The eFACE is a reliable instrument for high-resolution assessment of facial mimetic function.
NA.
使用强大的高分辨率仪器对面部对称性进行分级,将有助于提高对面部恢复性干预效果的报告质量。电子面部评估系统(eFACE)就是这样一种工具。
确定eFACE工具随时间的重测信度,以及当面进行的eFACE评估与使用面部表情功能视频进行的评估之间的一致性。
设计、设置和参与者:对2014年7月1日至12月31日期间连续就诊于一家学术性三级转诊医院的75例不同程度面瘫患者进行了一项前瞻性观察研究。在初次就诊时,对所有患者的面部对称性进行了当面评估,并通过面部表情功能的标准化照片和视频记录进行评估。初次就诊三个月后,由相同的评估者使用初次就诊时记录的面部表情功能视频重新评估eFACE评分。
由两位面部恢复外科医生评估的个体和子集eFACE评分。
在该研究的75例患者中(平均[标准差]年龄,48.18[16.60]岁;男性30例,女性45例),使用eFACE量表对面部功能进行的当面评估与视频评估之间的一致性非常好(静态子集评分:平均差异,0.19;95%置信区间,-1.51至1.88;P = 0.83;组内相关系数[ICC],0.85;95%置信区间,0.80至0.89;动态子集评分:平均差异,-0.51;95%置信区间,-1.72至0.71;P = 0.41;ICC,0.96;95%置信区间,0.94至0.97;联带运动子集评分:平均差异,-1.14;95%置信区间,-2.87至0.59;P = 0.20;ICC,0.90;95%置信区间,0.86至0.93;综合评分:平均差异,-0.41;95%置信区间,-1.30至0.47;P = 0.36;ICC,0.94;95%置信区间,0.92至0.96)。对面部功能视频进行的重复eFACE评估之间的一致性非常好(静态子集评分:ICC,0.93;95%置信区间,0.87至0.96;动态子集评分:ICC,0.88;95%置信区间,0.80至0.94;联带运动子集评分:ICC,0.92;95%置信区间,0.86至0.96;综合评分:ICC,0.96;95%置信区间,0.93至0.98)。
当面评估的面部功能eFACE评分与视频记录的评分之间存在高度一致性。eFACE评分的重测信度很高。eFACE是一种用于面部表情功能高分辨率评估的可靠工具。
无。