Gera Arwa, Gera Shadi, Dalstra Michel, Cattaneo Paolo M, Cornelis Marie A
Section of Orthodontics, Department of Dentistry and Oral Health, Aarhus University, C 8000 Aarhus, Denmark.
Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences, Melbourne Dental School, University of Melbourne, Carlton, VIC 3053, Australia.
J Clin Med. 2021 Apr 13;10(8):1646. doi: 10.3390/jcm10081646.
The aim of this study was to assess the validity and reproducibility of digital scoring of the Peer Assessment Rating (PAR) index and its components using a software, compared with conventional manual scoring on printed model equivalents. The PAR index was scored on 15 cases at pre- and post-treatment stages by two operators using two methods: first, digitally, on direct digital models using Ortho Analyzer software; and second, manually, on printed model equivalents using a digital caliper. All measurements were repeated at a one-week interval. Paired sample -tests were used to compare PAR scores and its components between both methods and raters. Intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC) were used to compute intra- and inter-rater reproducibility. The error of the method was calculated. The agreement between both methods was analyzed using Bland-Altman plots. There were no significant differences in the mean PAR scores between both methods and both raters. ICC for intra- and inter-rater reproducibility was excellent (≥0.95). All error-of-the-method values were smaller than the associated minimum standard deviation. Bland-Altman plots confirmed the validity of the measurements. PAR scoring on digital models showed excellent validity and reproducibility compared with manual scoring on printed model equivalents by means of a digital caliper.
本研究旨在评估使用软件对同伴评估评分(PAR)指数及其组成部分进行数字评分的有效性和可重复性,并与在等效打印模型上进行的传统手动评分进行比较。两名操作人员使用两种方法在治疗前和治疗后阶段对15例病例的PAR指数进行评分:第一,使用Ortho Analyzer软件在直接数字模型上进行数字评分;第二,使用数字卡尺在等效打印模型上进行手动评分。所有测量均在一周间隔后重复进行。采用配对样本检验比较两种方法和评分者之间的PAR评分及其组成部分。使用组内相关系数(ICC)计算评分者内和评分者间的可重复性。计算方法误差。使用Bland-Altman图分析两种方法之间的一致性。两种方法和两位评分者之间的平均PAR评分均无显著差异。评分者内和评分者间可重复性的ICC非常好(≥0.95)。所有方法误差值均小于相关的最小标准差。Bland-Altman图证实了测量的有效性。与使用数字卡尺在等效打印模型上进行手动评分相比,在数字模型上进行PAR评分显示出优异的有效性和可重复性。