Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37564461›Full record

ArticleAesthetic surgery journal. Open forum2023

Validating the Reliability and Clinical Relevance of an Infraorbital Hollow Photonumeric Scale.

Z Paul Lorenc, Stacy Smith, Lawrence S Bass, David Bank, Robert Weiss, Doug Canfield, Brian M D'Alessandro, Lisa M Cramer

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Aesthetic surgery journal. Open forum, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Z Paul Lorenc
Stacy Smith
Lawrence S Bass
David Bank
Robert Weiss
Doug Canfield
Brian M D'Alessandro
Lisa M Cramer

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Infraorbital hollowing is a facial aesthetic issue for which a broad age range of patients seek treatment. Expanding treatment options for this region warrants the development of validated tools to objectively assess infraorbital hollow (IOH) severity before and after treatment. Objectives: To validate a 4-point rating scale to assess depression of IOH, depression relative to the mid-pupillary line, and visibility of the lateral orbital rim. Methods: The IOH scale described herein was developed and subjected to live validation with a total of 73 patients representing the full range of IOH severities. Scale validation was performed by board-certified plastic surgeons and dermatologists (3 raters) over 2 rounds, 2 weeks apart. Intrarater and interrater reliabilities were used to demonstrate test-retest reliability as quantitated with percentage of agreement, weighted kappa statistic with 95% confidence interval (CI), and intraclass correlation coefficient with 95% CI. The clinical relevance of a 1-grade difference was evaluated by comparing rater assessments of 77 photo pairs with their previously determined designation as "clinically different" or "not clinically different." Results: The IOH scale demonstrated substantial to near-perfect intrarater and interrater reliabilities when utilized by trained raters to assess a diverse group of live patients. Furthermore, clinically relevant differences between grades were established, and detection of a 1-point difference could be achieved by trained evaluators using the IOH scale. Conclusions: This highly reliable, clinically relevant, and validated IOH scale provides a user-friendly, standardized grading system to objectively evaluate and track changes in infraorbital hollowing in clinical practice and research. Level of Evidence 3:

Identifiers

PMID37564461
PMCPMC10411921

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.