Validated 5‐point photonumeric scales for the assessment of the periorbital region

Abstract

Objective The objective of this investigation was to create and validate 5‐point photonumeric scales for the assessment of dynamic crow's feet, static crow's feet, and infraorbital hollows. Material and methods Three novel 5‐point photonumeric scales were created by a medical team. A total of 12 raters from all over the world performed a digital validation, and a total of 5 raters a live validation of the created scale. Results The statistical analysis revealed almost perfect intra‐rater and inter‐rater reliability in the digital validation of the scales for the assessment of static and dynamic crow's feet as well as infraorbital hollows. In the live validation, both crow's feet scales showed almost perfect intra‐rater reliability, while the Croma Infraorbital Hollow Assessment Scale showed substantial intra‐rater reliability. Inter‐rater reliability was substantial for all three scales in the live validation. All three scales, the Croma Dynamic Crow's Feet Assessment Scale, Croma Static Crow's Feet Assessment Scale, and Croma Infraorbital Hollow Assessment Scale, were validated digitally and in a live setting. Conclusion The created scales to assess infraorbital hollowing, dynamic and static crow's feet have been shown to provide substantial to almost perfect agreement in the digital and live validation and can thus be considered as helpful tools in the clinical and research setting. While technical methods and appliances to assess the degrees of severity of age‐dependent features are advancing, validated scales are of great importance due to their ease of use and, as shown by the validations, reliability, and reproducibility.

Novel Validated Five-point Photonumeric Scales for Assessment of Static and Dynamic Forehead Lines

“…The obtained inter- and intra-rater agreements are in line with the values of previously published scales. 10–12 The created scale for static forehead lines revealed higher intra and inter-rater agreement values than any other reported scale. At the same time, the created scale for dynamic forehead lines achieved at least comparable or better inter- and intra-rater agreement.…”

“…However, the last scale was published in 2016, and most of the available scales have not been validated in the digital and real-life setting. [10][11][12] Thus, the aim of this investigation was to validate two photonumeric scales for the assessment of static and dynamic forehead lines.…”

Establishment and application of perceived age prediction model for the periocular aging research of Chinese Han women

“…Both intrinsic and extrinsic factors contribute to the development of wrinkles and skin laxity, especially around the eye contour. Daily activities involving intense extraocular muscle movements, such as blinking, smiling, 13 squeezing, and squinting, exacerbate dynamic wrinkles and eyelid drooping 14 . Meanwhile, external elements like UV exposure damage the skin extracellular matrix, leading to coarse wrinkles and further laxity in this delicate area 15 .…”

“…Daily activities involving intense extraocular muscle movements, such as blinking, smiling, 13 squeezing, and squinting, exacerbate dynamic wrinkles and eyelid drooping. 14 Meanwhile, external elements like UV exposure damage the skin extracellular matrix, leading to coarse wrinkles and further laxity in this delicate area. 15 Eyes are often described as windows to the soul; thus, not only can a person's emotions and thoughts be understood by looking into their eyes, but the very periorbital structure also reflects individuals' genetic heritage as well as their perceived ages.…”

The Safety and Efficacy of a Dual CO2 and 1570-nm Hybrid Laser for Periorbital Rejuvenation

“…To define the objective improvement after the treatment, 4 independent nontreating physicians (2 dermatologists, 1 oculoplastic surgeon, and 1 plastic surgeon) assessed the photographs using 4 scales: the Fitzpatrick Wrinkle Scale 4 (FWS; Supplemental Digital Content , Table S1, http://links.lww.com/DSS/B234 ), the Lemperle Wrinkle Assessment Scale 5 ( Supplemental Digital Content , Table S2, http://links.lww.com/DSS/B234 ), Infraorbital Hollows Assessment Scale 6 (IOH; Supplemental Digital Content , Table S3, http://links.lww.com/DSS/B234 ), and Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale (GAIS; See Supplemental Digital Content , Table S4, http://links.lww.com/DSS/B234 ). The subjective improvement was valued based on patient satisfaction (1 = unsatisfied, 2 = slightly satisfied, 3 = satisfied, 4 = very satisfied) and Patients' Global Impression of Change (PGIC; Supplemental Digital Content , Table S5, http://links.lww.com/DSS/B234 ).…”