Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Objective:

Can we reliably discriminate severity within the existing categories of the 5-Year-Olds’ Index?

Design:

Retrospective method comparison and development study.

Setting:

School of Oral and Dental Science, University of Bristol.

Methods:

Dental study models of 5-year-olds with unilateral cleft lip and palate (UCLP) were collected from the archives of 2 national cleft surveys (n = 351). One hundred randomly selected models were ranked to construct the modified 5-Year-Olds’ Index and also scored using a visual analogue scale (VAS). Reliability testing was performed on 51 study models. Visual analogue scale scores were used to aid statistical analysis and investigate the reliability of a VAS for outcome measurement. The modified 5-Year-Olds’ Index was then applied to 198 study models of 5-year-olds with UCLP.

Results:

The modified 5-Year-Olds’ Index showed excellent intra and interexaminer agreement (intraclass correlation > 0.94) and good discrimination of severity. When applied to the Cleft Care UK participants (n = 198), the modified 5-Year-Olds’ Index showed good discrimination of severity within the better categories (groups 1-3) of the 5-Year-Olds’ Index. Visual analogue Scale scores resulted in unacceptable variation between measurements.

Conclusions:

The new modified 5-Year-Olds’ Index is a reliable method of assessing outcomes at 5 years of age and showed improved discriminatory power between the “better” outcome categories than the original 5-Year-Olds’ Index. A VAS was found to be unsuitable for assessing outcome at 5 years of age for children with UCLP.

Keywords

5-Year-Olds’ Index unilateral cleft lip and palate study models outcome measures

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Al-Ghatam

Jones

TEM

Ireland

Atack

Chawla

Deacon

Albery

Cobb

ARM

Cadogan

Leary

. Structural outcomes in the cleft care UK study. Part 2: dento-facial outcomes. Orthod Craniofac Res. 2015;18(2):14–24.

Atack

. 5 Year Olds’ Index Calibration Handbook (Japan). Orthodontic Department, University of Bristol. 2012. Unpublished.

Atack

Hathorn

Mars

Sandy

. Study models of 5 year old children as predictors of surgical outcome in unilateral cleft lip and palate. Eur J Orthod. 1997a;19(2):165–170.

Atack

Hathorn

Semb

Dowell

Sandy

. A new index for assessing surgical outcome in unilateral cleft lip and palate subjects aged five: reproducibility and validity. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 1997b;34(3):242–246.

Bijur

Silver

Gallagher

. Reliability of the visual analog scale for measurement of acute pain. Acad Emerg Med. 2001;8(12):1153–1157.

Bland

Altman

. A note on the use of the intraclass correlation coefficient in the evaluation of agreement between two methods of measurement. Comput Biol Med. 1990;20(5):337–340.

Bland

Altman

. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet. 1986;1(8476):307–310.

Chawla

Deacon

Atack

Ireland

Sandy

. The 5-year-olds’ Index: determining the optimal format for rating dental arch relationships in unilateral cleft lip and palate. Eur J Orthod. 2012;34(6):768–772.

Doros

Lew

. Design based on intra-class correlation coefficients. Am J Biostat. 2010;1(1):1–8.

10.

Felstead

Deacon

Revington

. The outcome for secondary alveolar bone grafting in the south west UK region post-CSAG. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2010;47(4):359–362.

11.

Fleiss

. Design and Analysis of Clinical Experiments: Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons; 1986.

12.

Fleiss

Cohen

. The equivalence of weighted kappa and the intraclass correlation coefficient as measures of reliability. Educ Psychol Meas. 1973;33(3):613–619.

13.

Gallagher

Liebman

Bijur

. Prospective validation of clinically important changes in pain severity measured on a visual analog scale. Ann Emerg Med. 2001;38(6):633–638.

14.

Jensen

Karoly

Braver

. The measurement of clinical pain intensity: a comparison of six methods. Pain. 1986;27(1):117–126.

15.

Jones

Leary

Atack

Ireland

Sandy

. Which index should be used to measure primary surgical outcome for unilateral cleft lip and palate patients? Eur J Orthod. 2016;38(4):345–352.

16.

Jones

TEM

. A Study to Determine the Optimal Outcome Measure to Assess Primary Surgery in Cleft Lip and Palate Patients and an Analysis of Five Year Old Patients as Part of the Cleft Care UK Study. Have Standards Improved since CSAG?. Bristol, England: DDS, University of Bristol; 2014.

17.

Liao

Cole

Mars

. Hard palate repair timing and facial growth in unilateral cleft lip and palate: a longitudinal study. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2006;43(5):547–556.

18.

Liao

Prasad

NKK

Chiu

Yun

Chen

PKT

. Cleft size at the time of palate repair in complete unilateral cleft lip and palate as an indicator of maxillary growth. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2010;39(10):956–961.

19.

Lund

Lundeberg

Sandberg

Budh

Kowalski

Svensson

. Lack of interchangeability between visual analogue and verbal rating pain scales: a cross sectional description of pain etiology groups. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2005;5:31.

20.

Mars

Houston

. A preliminary study of facial growth and morphology in unoperated male unilateral cleft lip and palate subjects over 13 years of age. Cleft Palate J. 1990;27(1):7–10.

21.

Mckelvie

. Graphic rating scales—How many categories? Br J Psychol. 1978;69(2):185–202.

22.

Mikoya

Shibukawa

Susami

Sato

Tengan

Katashima

Oyama

Matsuzawa

Ito

Funayama

. Dental arch relationship outcomes in one- and two-stage palatoplasty for Japanese patients with complete unilateral cleft lip and palate. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2014;52(3):277–286.

23.

Morris

Roberts

Shaw

. Incisal overjet as an outcome measure in unilateral cleft-lip and palate management. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 1994;31(2):142–145.

24.

Persson

Sandy

Waylen

Wills

Al-Ghatam

Ireland

Hall

Hollingworth

Jones

Peters

. A cross-sectional survey of 5-year-old children with non-syndromic unilateral cleft lip and palate: the Cleft Care UK study. Part 1: background and methodology. Orthod Craniofac Res. 2015;18(2):1–13.

25.

Revington

Mcnamara

Mukarram

Perera

Shah

Deacon

. Alveolar bone grafting: results of a national outcome study. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2010;92(8):643–646.

26.

Sandy

Williams

Mildinhall

Murphy

Bearn

Shaw

Sell

Devlin

Murray

. The Clinical Standards Advisory Group (CSAG) cleft lip and palate study. Br J Orthod. 1998;25(1):21–30.

27.

Todd

Funk

. The minimum clinically important difference in physician–assigned visual analog pain scores. Acad Emerg Med. 1996;3(2):142–146.

28.

Vuong

. Likelihood ratio tests for model selection and non-nested hypotheses. Econometrica. 1989;57(2):307–333.

29.

Weir

. Quantifying test-retest reliability using the intraclass correlation coefficient and the SEM. J Strength Cond Res. 2005;19(1):231–240.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.32 MB

Outcome Measures in UCLP: The Modified 5-Year-Olds’-Index—Development and Reliability

Abstract

Objective:

Design:

Setting:

Methods:

Results:

Conclusions:

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References

Supplementary Material