ArticleAesthetic surgery journal. Open forum2021
Validating a Series of Photonumeric Rating Scales for Use in Facial Aesthetics Using Statistical Analysis of Intra- and Inter-rater Reliability.
Article in Aesthetic surgery journal. Open forum, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Artificial Intelligence-Augmented Morphometric Reporting for Standardized Facial Aesthetic Treatment Planning: A Multi-Rater Reliability Study.Journal of cosmetic dermatology · 2026Article
- Creation and Validation of a Photonumeric Scale for Assessment of Midface Volume Deficit.Dermatologic surgery : official publication for American Society for Dermatologic Surgery [et al.] · 2026Article
- The PharmaResearch Under Eyelid Fine Line Severity Scale: Development and Validation of a Standardized Clinical Assessment Tool for Infraorbital Fine Wrinkles.Journal of cosmetic dermatology · 2026Article
- Article
- Development and Validation of Photonumeric Scales for Glabellar, Lateral Canthal, and Forehead Lines.Aesthetic surgery journal. Open forum · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Growing demand for minimally invasive aesthetic procedures to correct age-related facial changes and optimize facial proportions has been met with innovation but has created an unmet need for objective assessment tools to evaluate results empirically. Objectives: The purpose of this study is to establish the intra- and inter-rater reliability of ordinal, photonumeric, 4-, or 5-point rating scales for clinical use to assess facial aesthetics. Methods: Board-certified plastic surgeons and dermatologists (3 raters) performed live validation of jawline contour, temple volume, chin retrusion, nasolabial folds, vertical perioral lip lines, midface volume loss, lip fullness, and crow's feet dynamic- and at rest-rating scales over 2 rounds, 2 weeks apart. Subjects selected for live validation represented the range of scores and included 54 to 83 subjects for each scale. Test-retest reliability was quantitated through intra- and inter-rater reliability, determined from the mean weighted kappa and round 2 intraclass correlation coefficients, respectively. The clinical significance of a 1-grade difference was assessed through rater comparison of 31 pairs of side-by-side photographs of subjects with the same grade or a different grade on the developed scales. Results: The study demonstrated substantial to near-perfect intra- and inter-rater reliability of all scales when utilized by trained raters to assess a diverse group of live subjects. Furthermore, the clinical significance of a 1-point difference on all the developed scales was established. Conclusions: The high test-retest reliability and intuitive layout of these scales provide an objective approach with standardized ratings for clinical assessment of various facial features.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.