Fatih Özden1, İsmet Tümtürk2, Zübeyir Sarı3. 1. Department of Healthcare Services, Köyceğiz Vocational School of Health Services, Muğla Sıtkı Koçman University, Muğla, Turkey. fatihozden@mu.edu.tr. 2. Department of Physiotherapy and Rehabilitation, Institute of Health Sciences, Ege University, İzmir, Turkey. 3. Faculty of Health Sciences, Department of Physiotherapy and Rehabilitation, Marmara University, İstanbul, Turkey.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of the study was to present the systematic review and meta-analysis of the psychometrical analysis of Facial Disability Index (FDI) studies. METHODS: A literature search was conducted in the relevant electronic databases "PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science (WoS), and Cochrane Library." A total of 621 articles were obtained by searching the relevant keywords (PubMed: 384, Cochrane Library: 14, Web of Science: 132, Scopus: 91). A total of 8 papers were included. The four-point classification and rating-based "COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN)" tools were used to evaluate the bias risk and evidence levels. RESULTS: Cronbach's alpha pooling of FDI total score was (ES): 0.803 (95% CI: 0.73-0.86). Heterogeneity for the Facial Disability Index-Physical Function (FDI-PF) and Facial Disability Index-Social Function (FDI-SF) subscore based on intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) were I2 = 84.2% (ICC: 0.88, 95% CI: 0.81-0.92) and I2 = 73.7% (ICC: 0.87, 95% CI: 0.81-0.90), respectively. Correlational results between Sunnybrook Facial Grading System (SFGS) with FDI-PF and FDI-SF were 0.38 and 0.22, respectively. The correlations of FDI-PF with Short Form-12 Physical Component Summary (SF-12-PCS) and Short Form-12 Mental Health Component Summary (SF-12-MCS) were 0.43 and 0.28, respectively. Correlation results of FDI-SF with SF-12-PCS and SF-12-MCS were 0.23 and 0.57. The relationship results of Facial Clinimetric Evaluation with FDI-PF and FDI-SF were 0.71 and 0.57, respectively. CONCLUSION: FDI is a psychometrically valuable questionnaire, especially for the internal consistency, reliability, and validity. In clinical practice, the use of FDI would be valuable, in addition to clinician-based grading, to see more of patients' social influences precisely.
PURPOSE: The aim of the study was to present the systematic review and meta-analysis of the psychometrical analysis of Facial Disability Index (FDI) studies. METHODS: A literature search was conducted in the relevant electronic databases "PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science (WoS), and Cochrane Library." A total of 621 articles were obtained by searching the relevant keywords (PubMed: 384, Cochrane Library: 14, Web of Science: 132, Scopus: 91). A total of 8 papers were included. The four-point classification and rating-based "COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN)" tools were used to evaluate the bias risk and evidence levels. RESULTS: Cronbach's alpha pooling of FDI total score was (ES): 0.803 (95% CI: 0.73-0.86). Heterogeneity for the Facial Disability Index-Physical Function (FDI-PF) and Facial Disability Index-Social Function (FDI-SF) subscore based on intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) were I2 = 84.2% (ICC: 0.88, 95% CI: 0.81-0.92) and I2 = 73.7% (ICC: 0.87, 95% CI: 0.81-0.90), respectively. Correlational results between Sunnybrook Facial Grading System (SFGS) with FDI-PF and FDI-SF were 0.38 and 0.22, respectively. The correlations of FDI-PF with Short Form-12 Physical Component Summary (SF-12-PCS) and Short Form-12 Mental Health Component Summary (SF-12-MCS) were 0.43 and 0.28, respectively. Correlation results of FDI-SF with SF-12-PCS and SF-12-MCS were 0.23 and 0.57. The relationship results of Facial Clinimetric Evaluation with FDI-PF and FDI-SF were 0.71 and 0.57, respectively. CONCLUSION: FDI is a psychometrically valuable questionnaire, especially for the internal consistency, reliability, and validity. In clinical practice, the use of FDI would be valuable, in addition to clinician-based grading, to see more of patients' social influences precisely.
Authors: Eva Györi; Christopher Przestrzelski; Igor Pona; Michael Hagmann; Thomas Rath; Christine Radtke; C-H John Tzou Journal: Int J Surg Date: 2018-05-19 Impact factor: 6.071
Authors: Ingrid J Kleiss; Carien H G Beurskens; Peep F M Stalmeier; Koen J A O Ingels; Henri A M Marres Journal: Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol Date: 2015-01-28 Impact factor: 2.503
Authors: Martinus M van Veen; Tessa E Bruins; Madina Artan; Tanja Mooibroek-Leeuwerke; Carien H G Beurskens; Paul M N Werker; Pieter U Dijkstra Journal: Health Qual Life Outcomes Date: 2020-07-31 Impact factor: 3.186