↓ Skip to main content

Reliable classification of facial phenotypic variation in craniofacial microsomia: a comparison of physical exam and photographs

Overview of attention for article published in Head & Face Medicine, March 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
25 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
36 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Reliable classification of facial phenotypic variation in craniofacial microsomia: a comparison of physical exam and photographs
Published in
Head & Face Medicine, March 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13005-016-0109-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Craig B. Birgfeld, Carrie L. Heike, Babette S. Saltzman, Brian G. Leroux, Kelly N. Evans, Daniela V. Luquetti

Abstract

Craniofacial microsomia is a common congenital condition for which children receive longitudinal, multidisciplinary team care. However, little is known about the etiology of craniofacial microsomia and few outcome studies have been published. In order to facilitate large, multicenter studies in craniofacial microsomia, we assessed the reliability of phenotypic classification based on photographs by comparison with direct physical examination. Thirty-nine children with craniofacial microsomia underwent a physical examination and photographs according to a standardized protocol. Three clinicians completed ratings during the physical examination and, at least a month later, using respective photographs for each participant. We used descriptive statistics for participant characteristics and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) to assess reliability. The agreement between ratings on photographs and physical exam was greater than 80 % for all 15 categories included in the analysis. The ICC estimates were higher than 0.6 for most features. Features with the highest ICC included: presence of epibulbar dermoids, ear abnormalities, and colobomas (ICC 0.85, 0.81, and 0.80, respectively). Orbital size, presence of pits, tongue abnormalities, and strabismus had the lowest ICC, values (0.17 or less). There was not a strong tendency for either type of rating, physical exam or photograph, to be more likely to designate a feature as abnormal. The agreement between photographs and physical exam regarding the presence of a prior surgery was greater than 90 % for most features. Our results suggest that categorization of facial phenotype in children with CFM based on photographs is reliable relative to physical examination for most facial features.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 36 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 36 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 6 17%
Student > Postgraduate 5 14%
Other 3 8%
Lecturer 2 6%
Librarian 1 3%
Other 5 14%
Unknown 14 39%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 39%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 6%
Arts and Humanities 1 3%
Unspecified 1 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 3%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 15 42%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 31 March 2016.
All research outputs
#18,449,393
of 22,858,915 outputs
Outputs from Head & Face Medicine
#183
of 334 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#220,314
of 301,001 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Head & Face Medicine
#6
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,858,915 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 334 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.1. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 301,001 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.