Objective evaluation of facial features in Congolese newborns by facial measurements. The need for population-specific measurements.
Objective evaluation of facial features in Congolese newborns by facial measurements. The need for population-specific measurements.
复制标题
通过面部测量客观评估刚果新生儿的面部特征。
DOI：
10.1002/ajmg.a.62958
复制
发表时间：
2022
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Devriendt,Koenraad
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Mubungu,Gerrye;Roelants,Mathieu;Lumaka,Aimé;Makay,Prince;Tshika,Dahlie;Lubala,Toni;TshiloboLukusa,Prosper;Devriendt,Koenraad
对畸形的评估通常是主观的，因为许多连续特征不易测量或缺乏正常值。由于许多常见的形态特征在人群之间有所不同，因此需要相关性状的人群特定参考范围。我们的目的是根据面部测量结果对 553 名刚果新生儿面部畸形进行客观评估。与使用卡尺进行的测量相比，使用直尺进行的测量平均更大，但偏差并不取决于测量的大小。因此，我们引入了一个校正因子，允许在未来的研究中互换使用两种面部测量技术。与基于欧洲新生儿的参考值（分别为平均值 3.59 [SD1.76]；平均值 4.20 [SD2.26]；平均值 4.20 [SD0.26]）相比，刚果新生儿的外眦距离、睑裂长度和嘴宽显着更大（分别为平均值 6.59 [SD0.48]；平均值 2.20 [SD0.24]；平均值 2.78 [SD0.26]）。平均值 0.47 [SD1.21]），而其余测量值明显较小。根据内眦距离和外眦距离计算的瞳距（IPD）没有显着差异。我们观察到临床评估和测量特征之间的一致性较差（kappa 为 0.432）。在临床检查过程中，与瞳距较大的孩子相比，临床医生更有可能将一张脸识别为宽眼距。这表明测量的瞳距并不能准确反映临床上评估的宽眼间距。
The evaluation of dysmorphism is often subjective because many continuous traits are not easily measured or lack normal values. Because many common morphologic profiles vary between populations, population‐specific reference ranges of relevant traits are needed. We aim to evaluate the objective assessment of facial dysmorphism in 553 Congolese newborns based on facial measurements. Measurements taken with a ruler were on average larger compared to those with a caliper, but the bias did not depend on the size of the measurement. We therefore introduced a correction factor that allows to use both techniques for facial measurements interchangeably in future studies. The outer canthal distance, palpebral fissure length, and mouth width were significantly larger in Congolese newborns (respectively mean 6.59 [SD0.48]; mean 2.20 [SD0.24]; mean 2.78 [SD0.26]) when compared to references based on European newborns (respectively mean 3.59 [SD1.76]; mean 4.20 [SD2.26]; mean 0.47 [SD1.21]), while the rest of measurements were significantly smaller. The interpupillary distance (IPD) calculated from inner canthal distance and outer canthal distance was not significantly different. We observed a poor agreement between clinical evaluation and measured features (kappa of 0.432). Clinicians were more likely to recognize a face as having wide‐spaced eyes when it had been recognized as such during the clinical examination, more than if the child had a high interpupillary distance. This suggests that the measured IPD is not precisely reflecting what is clinically evaluated as wide‐spaced eyes.