ArticleInternational journal of dentistry2026
Comparison Between the Likert Scale and the Visual Analog Scale for the 3D Esthetic Assessment of Primary Cleft Lip Repair: A Prospective Study.
Article in International journal of dentistry, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: To compare the agreement, reliability and convergent validity of the five-point ordinal Likert scale and a 100 mm visual analog scale (VAS) for three-dimensional (3D) esthetic assessment of primary unilateral cleft lip repair using a counterbalanced crossover design. Materials and Methods: Fifty lay observers (25 males, 25 females) evaluated 3D stereophotogrammetric facial models of 10 children with nonsyndromic unilateral cleft lip and palate at three time points: preoperative (T0), 1-month postoperative (T1), and 6-months postoperative (T2). Nine morphological items were assessed using both the five-point Likert scale and a 100 mm VAS. A counterbalanced crossover design with a 2-week washout period and inversion of scale order was implemented to minimize recall and order effects. Pairwise agreement analyses between the categorized VAS and the five-point Likert scale (interscale, test-retest, presentation-mode, and longitudinal agreement) were assessed using Cohen's kappa ( Results: Pairwise agreement between the categorized VAS and the five-point Likert scale ranged from Conclusions: Both the five-point Likert scale and the VAS demonstrated excellent overall inter-rater reliability and excellent convergent validity. However, because agreement analyses required categorization of the continuous VAS, the present findings do not establish whether preservation of its continuous measurement properties would provide additional discriminatory capability. Clinical Relevance: For 3D esthetic assessment of primary unilateral cleft lip repair, both the five-point Likert scale and the VAS provide reliable group-level evaluations. Standardized image presentation protocols and the use of multiple evaluators are recommended to improve the consistency of esthetic auditing.
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.