Doris Hexsel1, Sabrina Guillen Fabi2, Gerhard Sattler3, Rolf Bartsch4, Kimberly Butterwick2, Gabriela Casabona5, Yates Yen-Yu Chao6, Joana Costa7, Joseph Eviatar8, Thorin L Geister9, Kate Goldie10, Jenny Grice11, Martina Kerscher12, Paul Lorenc13, Mary Lupo14, Wouter Peeters15, Rainer Pooth8, Heidi A Waldorf16, Yana Yutskovskaya17, Michael S Kaminer18. 1. Brazilian Center for Studies in Dermatology, Porto Alegre, Brazil. 2. Cosmetic Laser Dermatology, San Diego, California. 3. Rosenparkklinik, Darmstadt, Germany. 4. The Aesthetics, Vienna, Austria. 5. Clínica Vida, São Paulo, Brazil. 6. CHAO Institute of Aesthetic Medicine, Taipei, Taiwan. 7. Clínica Dermatológica Joana Costa, Brasília, Brazil. 8. Omni Aesthetic, New York, New York. 9. Merz Pharmaceuticals GmbH, Frankfurt, Germany. 10. European Medical Aesthetics Ltd, London, United Kingdom. 11. Le Prioldy, Bieuzy les Eaux, France. 12. Division of Cosmetic Sciences, University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany. 13. Z. Paul Lorenc Aesthetic Plastic Surgery, New York, New York. 14. Lupo Center for Aesthetic and General Dermatology, New Orleans, Louisiana. 15. AZ Klina, Brasschaat, Belgium. 16. Waldorf Dermatology Aesthetics, Nanuet, New York. 17. Department of Cosmetology, Pacific State Medical University of Health Ministry of Russia, Moscow, Russia. 18. SkinCare Physicians, Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: New treatment methods for cellulite require globally accepted scales for aesthetic research and patient evaluation. OBJECTIVE: To develop a set of grading scales for objective assessment of cellulite dimples on female buttocks and thighs and assess their reliability and validity. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two photonumeric grading scales were created and validated for dimples in the buttocks in female patients: Cellulite Dimples-At Rest, and Cellulite Dimples-Dynamic. Sixteen aesthetic experts rated photographs of 50 women in 2 validation sessions. Responses were analyzed to assess inter-rater and intra-rater reliability. RESULTS: Overall inter-rater reliability and intra-rater reliability were both "almost perfect" (≥0.81, intraclass correlation efficient and weighted kappa) for the At Rest scale. For the Dynamic scale, inter-rater reliability and intra-rater reliability were "substantial" (0.61-0.80). There was a high correlation between the cellulite scales and body mass index, age, weight, and skin laxity assessments. CONCLUSION: Consistent outcomes between raters and by individual raters at 2 time points confirm the reliability of the cellulite dimple grading scales for buttocks and thighs in female patients and suggest they will be a valuable tool for use in research and clinical practice.
BACKGROUND: New treatment methods for cellulite require globally accepted scales for aesthetic research and patient evaluation. OBJECTIVE: To develop a set of grading scales for objective assessment of cellulite dimples on female buttocks and thighs and assess their reliability and validity. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two photonumeric grading scales were created and validated for dimples in the buttocks in female patients: Cellulite Dimples-At Rest, and Cellulite Dimples-Dynamic. Sixteen aesthetic experts rated photographs of 50 women in 2 validation sessions. Responses were analyzed to assess inter-rater and intra-rater reliability. RESULTS: Overall inter-rater reliability and intra-rater reliability were both "almost perfect" (≥0.81, intraclass correlation efficient and weighted kappa) for the At Rest scale. For the Dynamic scale, inter-rater reliability and intra-rater reliability were "substantial" (0.61-0.80). There was a high correlation between the cellulite scales and body mass index, age, weight, and skin laxity assessments. CONCLUSION: Consistent outcomes between raters and by individual raters at 2 time points confirm the reliability of the cellulite dimple grading scales for buttocks and thighs in female patients and suggest they will be a valuable tool for use in research and clinical practice.
Authors: Elizabeth L Tanzi; Christopher C Capelli; David W Robertson; Brenda LaTowsky; Carolyn Jacob; Omer Ibrahim; Michael S Kaminer Journal: Lasers Surg Med Date: 2021-07-05
Authors: Claudia A Hernandez; John Mario Espinal; David Uribe Zapata; Daniel Coimbra; Michael Alfertshofer; Konstantin Frank; Jeremy B Green; Kristina Davidovic; Diana L Gavril; Sebastian Cotofana Journal: Aesthetic Plast Surg Date: 2021-05-13 Impact factor: 2.326
Authors: Patrick Trevidic; Wayne Carey; Anthony V Benedetto; John H Joseph; Laura Eaton; Stéphanie Antunes; Pauline Maffert Journal: J Cosmet Dermatol Date: 2022-01-20 Impact factor: 2.189
Authors: Joel L Cohen; Neil S Sadick; M Todd Kirby; Michael P McLane; William R Lenderking; Randall H Bender; Jun Chen; David Hurley; Naomi B Knoble; Genzhou Liu; Qinfang Xiang; Jeffrey A Davidson; Mitchel P Goldman Journal: Dermatol Surg Date: 2020-12 Impact factor: 2.914