An International Collaborative Standardizing Patient-Centered Outcome Measures in Pediatric Facial Palsy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
IMPORTANCE: Standardization of outcome measurement using a patient-centered approach in pediatric facial palsy may help aid the advancement of clinical care in this population. OBJECTIVE: To develop a standardized outcome measurement set for pediatric patients with facial palsy through an international multidisciplinary group of health care professionals, researchers, and patients and patient representatives. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A working group of health care experts and patient representatives (n = 21), along with external reviewers, participated in the study. Seven teleconferences were conducted over a 9-month period between December 3, 2016, and September 23, 2017, under the guidance of the International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement, each followed with a 2-round Delphi process to develop consensus. This process defined the scope, outcome domains, measurement tools, time points for measurements, and case-mix variables deemed essential to a standardized outcome measurement set. Each teleconference was informed by a comprehensive review of literature and through communication with patient advisory groups. Literature review of PubMed was conducted for research published between January 1, 1981, and November 30, 2016. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The study aim was to develop the outcomes and measures relevant to children with facial palsy as opposed to studying the effect of a particular intervention. RESULTS: The 21 members of the working group included pediatric facial palsy experts from 9 countries. The literature review identified 1628 papers, of which 395 (24.3%) were screened and 83 (5.1%) were included for qualitative evaluation. A standard set of outcome measurements was designed by the working group to allow the recording of outcomes after all forms of surgical and nonsurgical facial palsy treatments among pediatric patients of all ages. Unilateral or bilateral, congenital or acquired, permanent or temporary, and single-territory or multiterritory facial palsy can be evaluated using this standard set. Functional, appearance, psychosocial, and administrative outcomes were selected for inclusion. Clinimetric and psychometric outcome measurement tools (clinician-, patient-, and patient proxy-reported) and time points for measuring patient outcomes were established. Eighty-six independent reviews of the standard set were completed, and 34 (85%) of the 40 patients and patient representatives and 44 (96%) of the 46 health care professionals who participated in the reviews agreed that the standard set would capture the outcomes that matter most to children with facial palsy. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This international collaborative study produced a free standardized set of outcome measures for evaluating the quality of care provided to pediatric patients with facial palsy, allowing benchmarking of clinicians, comparison of treatment pathways, and introduction of value-based reimbursement strategies in the field of pediatric facial palsy. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: NA.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.560 | 0.542 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.018 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.009 | 0.019 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".