Maintenance Notice

Due to necessary scheduled maintenance, the JMIR Publications website will be unavailable from Wednesday, July 01, 2020 at 8:00 PM to 10:00 PM EST. We apologize in advance for any inconvenience this may cause you.

Who will be affected?

Accepted for/Published in: Journal of Medical Internet Research

Date Submitted: May 28, 2018
Open Peer Review Period: May 29, 2018 - Jun 18, 2018
Date Accepted: Nov 20, 2018
(closed for review but you can still tweet)

The final, peer-reviewed published version of this preprint can be found here:

Face-to-Face Versus Video Assessment of Facial Paralysis: Implications for Telemedicine

Tan JR, Coulson S, Keep M

Face-to-Face Versus Video Assessment of Facial Paralysis: Implications for Telemedicine

J Med Internet Res 2019;21(4):e11109

DOI: 10.2196/11109

PMID: 30977734

PMCID: 6484264

Warning: This is an author submission that is not peer-reviewed or edited. Preprints - unless they show as "accepted" - should not be relied on to guide clinical practice or health-related behavior and should not be reported in news media as established information.

Face-to-Face Versus Video Assessment of Facial Paralysis: Implications for Telemedicine

  • Jian Rong Tan; 
  • Susan Coulson; 
  • Melanie Keep

Background:

Patients with facial nerve paralysis (FNP) experience challenges in accessing health care that could potentially be overcome by telemedicine. However, the reliability of telemedicine has yet to be established in this field.

Objective:

This study aimed to investigate the consistency between face-to-face and video assessments of patients with FNP by experienced clinicians.

Methods:

A repeated-measures design was used. A total of 7 clinicians assessed the FNP of 28 patients in a face-to-face clinic using standardized grading systems (the House-Brackmann, Sydney, and Sunnybrook facial grading systems). After 3 months, the same grading systems were used to assess facial palsy in video recordings of the same patients.

Results:

The House-Brackmann system in video assessment had excellent reliability and agreement (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC]=0.780; principal component analysis [PCA]=87.5%), similar to face-to-face assessment (ICC=0.686; PCA=79.2%). Reliability of the Sydney system was good to excellent, with excellent agreement face-to-face (ICC=0.633 to 0.834; PCA=81.0%-95.2%). However, video assessment of the cervical branch and synkinesis had fair reliability and good agreement (ICC=0.437 to 0.597; PCA=71.4%), whereas that of other branches had good to excellent reliability and excellent agreement (ICC=0.625 to 0.862; PCA=85.7%-100.0%). Reliability of the Sunnybrook system was poor to fair for resting symmetry (ICC=0.195 to 0.498; PCA=91.3%-100.0%) and synkinesis (ICC=−0.037 to 0.637; PCA=69.6%-87.0%) but was good to excellent for voluntary movement (ICC=0.601 to 0.906; PCA=56.5%-91.3%) in face-to-face and video assessments. Bland-Altman plots indicated normal limits of agreement within ±1 between face-to-face and video-assessed scores only for the temporal and buccal branches of the Sydney system and for resting symmetry in the Sunnybrook system.

Conclusions:

Video assessment of FNP with the House-Brackmann and Sunnybrook systems was as reliable as face-to-face but with insufficient agreement, especially in the assessment of synkinesis. However, video assessment does not account for the impact of real-time interactions that occur during tele-assessment sessions.


 Citation

Please cite as:

Tan JR, Coulson S, Keep M

Face-to-Face Versus Video Assessment of Facial Paralysis: Implications for Telemedicine

J Med Internet Res 2019;21(4):e11109

DOI: 10.2196/11109

PMID: 30977734

PMCID: 6484264

Per the author's request the PDF is not available.

© The authors. All rights reserved. This is a privileged document currently under peer-review/community review (or an accepted/rejected manuscript). Authors have provided JMIR Publications with an exclusive license to publish this preprint on it's website for review and ahead-of-print citation purposes only. While the final peer-reviewed paper may be licensed under a cc-by license on publication, at this stage authors and publisher expressively prohibit redistribution of this draft paper other than for review purposes.