Development and Validation Clinician and Patient Reported Photonumeric Scales to Assess Buttocks Cellulite Severity.
Adult
Aged
Buttocks
/ diagnostic imaging
Cellulite
/ diagnosis
Clinical Trials, Phase I as Topic
Clinical Trials, Phase II as Topic
Dermatologists
/ statistics & numerical data
Esthetics
Female
Humans
Male
Middle Aged
Observer Variation
Patient Reported Outcome Measures
Photography
/ statistics & numerical data
Qualitative Research
Reproducibility of Results
Severity of Illness Index
Surgeons
/ statistics & numerical data
Treatment Outcome
Young Adult
Journal
Dermatologic surgery : official publication for American Society for Dermatologic Surgery [et al.]
ISSN: 1524-4725
Titre abrégé: Dermatol Surg
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 9504371
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
12 2020
12 2020
Historique:
pubmed:
4
10
2020
medline:
20
1
2021
entrez:
3
10
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The Clinician Reported Photonumeric Cellulite Severity Scale (CR-PCSS) and Patient Reported PCSS (PR-PCSS) are newly developed tools for assessing cellulite severity. To report on the reliability, validity, and ability to detect a change in cellulite severity on the buttocks of adult women with the CR-PCSS and PR-PCSS. Content validity of both scales was established through concept elicitation and cognitive interviews. Test-retest reliability was evaluated, and intra-rater (both scales) and inter-rater (CR-PCSS only) reliability were estimated using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) for agreement and consistency. Ability to detect a change was determined using the Subject-Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale (GAIS) or Investigator-GAIS as anchors. For the CR-PCSS (n = 6) at baseline and Day 2, the mean interrater ICCs were ≥0.70 and mean intrarater ICCs (95% confidence interval [CI]) were ≥0.81 (0.72-0.90) for both buttocks. For the PR-PCSS (n = 99) at baseline and Day 14, the mean test-retest reliability ICCs (95% CI) were ≥0.86 (0.79-0.91) for both buttocks. A clinically meaningful change was 1.0 point on the PR-PCSS and 1.0 on the CR-PCSS. The CR-PCSS and PR-PCSS reliably assess cellulite severity of the buttocks and can detect a clinically meaningful change after treatment for cellulite.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
The Clinician Reported Photonumeric Cellulite Severity Scale (CR-PCSS) and Patient Reported PCSS (PR-PCSS) are newly developed tools for assessing cellulite severity.
OBJECTIVE
To report on the reliability, validity, and ability to detect a change in cellulite severity on the buttocks of adult women with the CR-PCSS and PR-PCSS.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Content validity of both scales was established through concept elicitation and cognitive interviews. Test-retest reliability was evaluated, and intra-rater (both scales) and inter-rater (CR-PCSS only) reliability were estimated using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) for agreement and consistency. Ability to detect a change was determined using the Subject-Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale (GAIS) or Investigator-GAIS as anchors.
RESULTS
For the CR-PCSS (n = 6) at baseline and Day 2, the mean interrater ICCs were ≥0.70 and mean intrarater ICCs (95% confidence interval [CI]) were ≥0.81 (0.72-0.90) for both buttocks. For the PR-PCSS (n = 99) at baseline and Day 14, the mean test-retest reliability ICCs (95% CI) were ≥0.86 (0.79-0.91) for both buttocks. A clinically meaningful change was 1.0 point on the PR-PCSS and 1.0 on the CR-PCSS.
CONCLUSION
The CR-PCSS and PR-PCSS reliably assess cellulite severity of the buttocks and can detect a clinically meaningful change after treatment for cellulite.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33009069
doi: 10.1097/DSS.0000000000002756
pmc: PMC7685927
pii: 00042728-202012000-00036
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Validation Study
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1628-1635Commentaires et corrections
Type : ErratumIn
Références
Semin Cutan Med Surg. 2015 Sep;34(3):144-6
pubmed: 26682337
Am J Ment Defic. 1981 Sep;86(2):127-37
pubmed: 7315877
J Chiropr Med. 2016 Jun;15(2):155-63
pubmed: 27330520
Qual Life Res. 2014 Nov;23(9):2457-62
pubmed: 24806354
Dermatol Surg. 2015 Mar;41(3):336-47
pubmed: 25742555
Dermatol Surg. 2019 Aug;45(8):1047-1056
pubmed: 30829779
J Am Acad Dermatol. 2010 Mar;62(3):361-70; quiz 371-2
pubmed: 20159304
Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2014 Oct;38(5):849-60
pubmed: 24984785
Dermatol Surg. 2003 Jun;29(6):588-95
pubmed: 12786700
J Dermatol Surg Oncol. 1978 Mar;4(3):221-9
pubmed: 632386
Aesthet Surg J. 2018 Aug 16;38(9):998-1010
pubmed: 29401213
J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2009 May;23(5):523-8
pubmed: 19220646
JAMA Dermatol. 2015 Apr;151(4):375-81
pubmed: 25549367
Dermatol Surg. 2019 Aug;45 Suppl 1:S2-S11
pubmed: 31246867
Semin Cutan Med Surg. 2017 Dec;36(4):179-184
pubmed: 29224035
Aesthet Surg J. 2013 May;33(4):576-84
pubmed: 23536056
Clin Cosmet Investig Dermatol. 2017 Jan 07;10:17-23
pubmed: 28123311
Value Health. 1999 Mar-Apr;2(2):113-27
pubmed: 16674343
Lasers Surg Med. 2016 Jan;48(1):14-22
pubmed: 26581783