{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03190519598906107, 'fraction_numerical': 0.016408386508659983, 'mean_word_length': 5.183098591549296, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
An appraisal of three methods of rating facial deformity in patients with repaired complete unilateral cleft lip and palate.

OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the reliability of clinical assessment, two-dimensional color transparencies and three-dimensional imaging for evaluating the residual facial deformity in patients with repaired complete unilateral cleft lip and palate (UCLP) and compare the ratings of facial deformity made by health care professionals with those made by lay assessors. PATIENTS AND PARTICIPANTS Thirty-one randomly selected subjects aged 10 to 30 years with repaired complete UCLP. Five professionals and five laypersons evaluated each subject's residual cleft-related facial deformity using clinical assessment, two-dimensional color transparencies, and three-dimensional images.


MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES
The facial deformity of the full face, lip, nose, and midface were scored using a 5-point ordinal scale on two occasions with a 1-month interval. Intra- and interexaminer agreements were calculated from weighted kappa statistics. Bootstrap permutation tests were used to detect any differences in agreement.


RESULTS
Assessment of facial deformity showed good reproducibility across the three assessment media (kappa = 0.42 to 0.83, SE 0.08). Clinical assessment among lay assessors, however, was poor to moderate (kappa = 0.16 to 0.58, SE 0.07). For all assessors, there was no difference in the two nonclinical media relative to the standard clinical assessment for assessments of the full face (p =.377). For assessments of the lip or nose, transparency scores were in greater agreement with the clinical scores than were the three-dimensional assessment scores (p =.017 and.011, respectively). For rating the midface, the three-dimensional scores were in greater agreement with the clinical scores than were the color transparencies scores (p =.047).


CONCLUSIONS
In comparison with lay assessors, clinical assessment among professionals was more reproducible. This was not so for nonclinical media. The equivalence of using the color transparencies and three-dimensional media relative to the clinical assessment depends on the region of the face being considered.