Düppe Katarina, Becker Magnus, Schönmeyr Björn
Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Skåne Universit Hospital, Department of Clinical Sciences, Lund University, Malmö, Sweden.
J Craniofac Surg. 2018 Jul;29(5):1245-1251. doi: 10.1097/SCS.0000000000004580.
In this study, 14 standard facial distances on 10 adult volunteers were measured directly with a caliper and indirectly on two-dimensional images using the 3dMDtrio system. Two raters performed the measurements with at least 1 week between rating sessions. The intra- and inter-rater reliabilities and agreement of the measurements were calculated using intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC), mean absolute difference (MAD), and Bland-Altman plots with limits of agreement (LOA). The 2 raters had an average discrepancy (MAD) of 1.6 mm when their digital measurements were compared to their direct measurements. The reliability of the digital and direct methods varied greatly depending on which of the 14 anthropometric distances that was being assessed. Only 6 digitally and 5 directly measured anthropometric distances showed both an ICC >0.75 and a MAD <1 mm, in the intra-rater as well as the inter-rater measurements. The Bland-Altman plots and LOA displayed the same pattern. In summary, the digital and direct methods were generally compatible in terms of reliability and agreement. However, the reliability and agreement between the 14 anthropometric measurements varied considerably, indicating that poor landmark identification is the main limitation to both modern and traditional measuring techniques in the face. Consequently, some anthropometric landmarks warrant further definition or prior anthropometric training by the evaluators. The authors also recommend that the MADs and LOAs provided in this report are put into relation to the facial distance that is being evaluated and its clinical context.
在本研究中,使用卡尺直接测量了10名成年志愿者的14个标准面部距离,并使用3dMDtrio系统在二维图像上间接测量。两名评估者进行测量,两次评估之间至少间隔1周。使用组内相关系数(ICC)、平均绝对差(MAD)以及带有一致性界限(LOA)的布兰德-奥特曼图来计算评估者内部和评估者之间测量的可靠性和一致性。当将两名评估者的数字测量结果与直接测量结果进行比较时,平均差异(MAD)为1.6毫米。数字测量方法和直接测量方法的可靠性因所评估的14个人体测量距离中的哪一个而有很大差异。在评估者内部以及评估者之间的测量中,只有6个数字测量和5个直接测量的人体测量距离显示ICC>0.75且MAD<1毫米。布兰德-奥特曼图和LOA显示出相同的模式。总之,数字测量方法和直接测量方法在可靠性和一致性方面总体上是兼容的。然而,14个人体测量指标之间的可靠性和一致性差异很大,这表明地标识别不佳是现代和传统面部测量技术的主要限制。因此,一些人体测量地标需要进一步定义或评估者事先进行人体测量培训。作者还建议,本报告中提供的MAD和LOA应与所评估的面部距离及其临床背景相关联。