.png)
.png)
BACKGROUND: To compare the reliability of the House–Brackmann (HB), Facial Nerve Grading System 2.0 (FNGS 2.0), and Sunnybrook Facial Grading System (SB) which are widely used in the evaluation of peripheral facial paralysis (PFP) patients.
METHODS: Thirty-five video-recorded adult PFP patients were included in the study. The evaluators comprised 6 physicians. Evaluations were conducted twice independently, utilizing video recordings. Simultaneously, the evaluators were asked to keep time during the evaluation. For the analysis of reliability, Fleiss’ kappa coefficient was used for the HB, and the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was used for the FNGS 2.0 and SB.
RESULTS: The mean evaluation time of 1 patient was found to be 1.06 ± 0.24, 1.47 ± 0.23, and 2.32 ± 0.41 minutes for the HB, FNGS 2.0, and SB, respectively. For interrater reliability, Fleiss’ kappa for the HB was 0.495 and 0.403; ICC for the FNGS 2.0 was 0.966 and 0.958; ICC for the SB was 0.960 and 0.967 for the first and second measurements, respectively. For intrarater reliability, Fleiss’ kappa for the HB was 0.391, 0.446, 0.564, 0.502, 0.626, and 0.455; ICC for the FNGS 2.0 was 0.87, 0.982, 0.966, 0.929, 0.933, and 0.948; ICC for the SB was 0.935, 0.96, 0.895, 0.941, 0.96, and 0.94 for the 6 raters, respectively.
CONCLUSION: In the present study, statistically high intra- and interrater correlations were found for the FNGS 2.0 and SB, while a moderate correlation was found for the HB. Although the HB seems to be more practical, it has been concluded that the FNGS 2.0 and SB are more reliable
Cite this article as: Mengi E, Kara CO, Ardıç FN, et al. Comparison of the reliability of the house-brackmann, facial nerve grading system 2.0, and sunnybrook facial grading system for the evaluation of patients with peripheral facial paralysis. J Int Adv Otol. 2024;20(1):14-18.