SciELO - Scientific Electronic Library Online

vol.9 issue3Prevalence of and Risk Indicators for Chronic Periodontitis in Males from Campeche, MexicoSearch for Tuberculosis in patients with the respiratory symptoms in four hospitals of Bogotá D.C. author indexsubject indexarticles search
Home Pagealphabetic serial listing  

Services on Demand



Related links

  • On index processCited by Google
  • Have no similar articlesSimilars in SciELO
  • On index processSimilars in Google


Revista de Salud Pública

Print version ISSN 0124-0064


YEZIORO RUBINSKY, Salomón  and  ESLAVA-SCHMALBACH, Javier. Experts' clinical Diagnosis Test as a Gold Standard for Cephalometric Evaluation of Vertical Facial Excess. Rev. salud pública [online]. 2007, vol.9, n.3, pp.399-407. ISSN 0124-0064.

Objective Cephalometric measures are used to evaluate vertical facial excess (VFE), however anyone of them have been validated against a gold standard to this purpose. Also, there are differences between cephalometric results and clinical evaluation. This study pretends to validate experts' clinical diagnosis test (ECDT) as gold standard for severe VFE, with the purpose of validating further against it the cephalometric measures results. Methods A consensus (Delphi method) was done to determine if ECDT could be used as gold standard for evident VFE (n=12 experts). A scale of 9 items was initially built from literature. Validity: A convenience sample was used (n=24), which were tested by 3 experts twice. Principal factor analysis was made. Internal consistency was evaluated with Cronbach's alpha coefficient. Inter-observer and intra-observer agreement was measured using Kendall concordance coefficient. ECDT's medians were compared between groups with VFE, using Kruskal Wallis test. Results Eleven of the twelve experts agreed that clinical diagnosis can be used as a gold standard for VFE. After Principal factor analysis a 6 items' scale was made. Internal consistency was high (Cronbach's alpha= 0.8051). ECDT's medians were different in groups with different qualitative appreciation of VFE by experts, in first (p<0.0001) and second evaluation (p<0.0001). A significant interobserver agreement was found (Kendall taub, p<0,01), and a significant intra-observer agreement too (Kendall tau-b, p<0.0005). Conclusions Experts' clinical diagnosis test (ECDT) could be used as gold standard for VFE. Later on, Cephalometric measures should be evaluated using the experts' clinical diagnosis as gold standard.

Keywords : Cephalometry; vertical dimension; physical examination.

        · abstract in Spanish     · text in English     · English ( pdf )


Creative Commons License All the contents of this journal, except where otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License