We have located links that may give you full text access.
Nasolabial Aesthetics Following Cleft Repair: An Objective Evaluation of Subjective Assessment.
Cleft Palate-craniofacial Journal 2019 May 23
OBJECTIVE: Assess the weight and contribution of each of the parameters of the Asher-McDade Scale to overall subjective assessment of nasolabial aesthetics following cleft lip repair.
DESIGN: Retrospective cohort evaluation.
SETTING: Cleft and craniofacial center.
PARTICIPANTS: Forty-one patients who underwent unilateral cleft lip repair.
INTERVENTIONS: Unilateral cleft lip repair.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Nasolabial rating using the Asher-McDade scale and overall subjective assessment of nasolabial aesthetics using a rank score following unilateral cleft lip repair.
RESULTS: Strong interrater reliability was observed between the 3 raters. Significant association was determined on bivariate analysis between nasal form score (β = 27.06; P < .001), nasal symmetry score (β = 26.41; P < .001), nasal profile score (β = 28.75; P < .001), vermilion border score (β = 13.40; P = .012), and the ranking score. Adjusted β coefficients obtained from multivariate regression analysis were used to develop a modified nasolabial appearance score (over 5), that is, weighted for each of the 4 parameters: nasal form (over 8, adjusted β = 14.33), nasal symmetry (over 5, adjusted β = 7.96), nasal profile (over 5, adjusted β = 9.44), and vermilion (over 2, adjusted β = 3.31). Regression analysis between our modified nasolabial appearance score and patient ranking score demonstrated superior goodness of fit when compared to the Asher-McDade overall nasolabial appearance score ( R 2 = .80; P < .001 vs R 2 = .69; P < .001).
CONCLUSION: The parameters evaluated in the Asher-McDade scale have different weights and contribute differently to overall subjective assessment of nasolabial aesthetic outcomes following cleft lip repair. Adjusting for their weights results in a modified score that demonstrates superior correlation with overall subjective assessment of nasolabial aesthetic outcomes.
DESIGN: Retrospective cohort evaluation.
SETTING: Cleft and craniofacial center.
PARTICIPANTS: Forty-one patients who underwent unilateral cleft lip repair.
INTERVENTIONS: Unilateral cleft lip repair.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Nasolabial rating using the Asher-McDade scale and overall subjective assessment of nasolabial aesthetics using a rank score following unilateral cleft lip repair.
RESULTS: Strong interrater reliability was observed between the 3 raters. Significant association was determined on bivariate analysis between nasal form score (β = 27.06; P < .001), nasal symmetry score (β = 26.41; P < .001), nasal profile score (β = 28.75; P < .001), vermilion border score (β = 13.40; P = .012), and the ranking score. Adjusted β coefficients obtained from multivariate regression analysis were used to develop a modified nasolabial appearance score (over 5), that is, weighted for each of the 4 parameters: nasal form (over 8, adjusted β = 14.33), nasal symmetry (over 5, adjusted β = 7.96), nasal profile (over 5, adjusted β = 9.44), and vermilion (over 2, adjusted β = 3.31). Regression analysis between our modified nasolabial appearance score and patient ranking score demonstrated superior goodness of fit when compared to the Asher-McDade overall nasolabial appearance score ( R 2 = .80; P < .001 vs R 2 = .69; P < .001).
CONCLUSION: The parameters evaluated in the Asher-McDade scale have different weights and contribute differently to overall subjective assessment of nasolabial aesthetic outcomes following cleft lip repair. Adjusting for their weights results in a modified score that demonstrates superior correlation with overall subjective assessment of nasolabial aesthetic outcomes.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app