ArticleJournal of personalized medicine2023
Reliability and Validity of Emotrics in the Assessment of Facial Palsy.
Article in Journal of personalized medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Beyond the smile: a systematic review of diagnostic tools for peripheral facial paralysis.Acta neurologica Belgica · 2024Pooled it
- Quantitative facial analysis using emotrics in patients undergoing vestibular schwannoma surgery.Acta neurochirurgica · 2026Article
- Telerehabilitation for peripheral facial palsy: A scoping review.Journal of telemedicine and telecare · 2026Article
- AI-Based Angle Map Analysis of Facial Asymmetry in Peripheral Facial Palsy.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Continuous and componentized facial palsy measurement alignment and clinical interpretable model.NPJ digital medicine · 2025Article
- Deep learning-based automatic facial symmetry scoring in peripheral facial palsy.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Efficacy of electrical stimulation of the zygomaticus muscle in complete facial paralysis: evidence from facial grading and automated image analysis.European journal of translational myology · 2024Article
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
The globally accepted evaluation method for facial palsy is the House-Brackmann facial grading system; however, it does not reflect minute changes. Several methods have been attempted, but there is no universally accepted evaluation method that is non-time-consuming and quantitative. Recently, Emotrics, a two-dimensional analysis that incorporates machine-learning techniques, has been used in various clinical fields. However, its reliability and validity have not yet been determined. Therefore, this study aimed to examine and establish the reliability and validity of Emotrics. All patients had previously received speech therapy for facial palsy at our hospital between January and November 2022. In speech therapy at our hospital, Emotrics was routinely used to measure the state of the patient's facial palsy. A frame was created to standardize and overcome the limitation of the two-dimensional analysis. Interrater, intrarater, and intrasubject reliability were evaluated with intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) by measuring the indicators that reflect eye and mouth functions. Validity was evaluated using Spearman's correlation for each Emotrics parameter and the House-Brackmann facial grading system. A total of 23 patients were included in this study. For all parameters, there was significant interrater and intrarater reliability (ICC, 0.61 to 0.99). Intrasubject reliability showed significant reliability in most parameters (ICC, 0.68 to 0.88). Validity showed a significant correlation in two parameters (
Indexed as
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.