Observational studyCoDAS2025
Classification of central facial paralysis: an agreement analysis.
Observational study in CoDAS, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo identify whether there is interrater and intrarater agreement in the classification of the degree of central facial paralysis using two scales and verify which one is more appropriate to classify the severity of facial expressions according to experts' opinion.
methodObservational, prospective, cross-sectional study of agreement analysis of the House & Brackmann (HB) scale and the Sunnybrook Facial Grading System (SFGS). Five speech-language-hearing pathologists with clinical experience analyzed post-stroke facial expression of 30 adults for interrater agreement. They were evaluated in two stages, with a 10-day interval; the second stage involved 20% of the initial sample for intrarater agreement. The study used weighted kappa coefficient for the HB scale and the intraclass correlation coefficient for the SFGS classification.
resultsThe HB scale indicated considerable interrater and excellent intrarater agreements. The SFGS had good interrater and intrarater agreements. All speech-language-hearing pathologists considered the SFGS the most appropriate scale for classifying central facial paralysis.
conclusionThe SFGS performed better in interrater agreement analysis. The HB scale had considerable merits in the intrarater assessment. Both scales are adaptable and useful to assess and classify central facial paralysis. However, the speech-language-hearing pathologists indicated the SFGS as the most appropriate.
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.