Optometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry · 2015
Assessment of Bulbar Redness with a Newly Developed Keratograph.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАВалидационное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Wu Suqian, Hong Jiaxu, Tian Lijia, Cui Xinhan, Sun Xinghuai, Xu Jianjiang
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To determine the validity and reliability of the clinical assessment of bulbar redness (BR) using a newly developed corneal topographer.
METHODS: This is a cross-sectional diagnostic evaluation study. The BR scores [Oculus Index (OI)] from 30 eyes of 26 patients with different degrees of conjunctival hyperemia were assessed and scored automatically using a new method: a keratograph equipped with scanning and scoring software. The values obtained via this system were correlated with three image-based comparative subjective scales: the Institute for Eye Research (IER), the Efron, and the Validated Bulbar Redness (VBR) grading scales. The IER and Efron scores were interpolated to 0.1 unit, and the VBR scores were interpolated to 1 unit. We also evaluated the repeatability of each method and the level of agreement between the OI score and the scores achieved using the three other image-based methods.
RESULTS: There was a significant correlation between the OI score and the scores obtained with the IER (r = 0.921, p < 0.001), Efron (r = 0.958, p < 0.001), and VBR (r = 0.965, p < 0.001) scales. The intraobserver intraclass correlation coefficients were 0.947, 0.874, 0.810, and 0.920 for the OI, IER, Efron, and VBR, respectively, and the intraobserver coefficients of repeatability were 13.924, 16.111, 17.684, and 16.900, respectively. Furthermore, the interobserver intraclass correlation coefficients were 0.889, 0.880, 0.884, and 0.881 for the OI, IER, Efron, and VBR, respectively, and the interobserver coefficients of repeatability were 15.934, 16.366, 22.059, and 21.373, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: The OI is an objective and reliable method for scoring BR. Its reproducibility was the highest of all the four modalities. The keratograph is recommended, therefore, as a suitable alternative for BR assessment.
METHODS: This is a cross-sectional diagnostic evaluation study. The BR scores [Oculus Index (OI)] from 30 eyes of 26 patients with different degrees of conjunctival hyperemia were assessed and scored automatically using a new method: a keratograph equipped with scanning and scoring software. The values obtained via this system were correlated with three image-based comparative subjective scales: the Institute for Eye Research (IER), the Efron, and the Validated Bulbar Redness (VBR) grading scales. The IER and Efron scores were interpolated to 0.1 unit, and the VBR scores were interpolated to 1 unit. We also evaluated the repeatability of each method and the level of agreement between the OI score and the scores achieved using the three other image-based methods.
RESULTS: There was a significant correlation between the OI score and the scores obtained with the IER (r = 0.921, p < 0.001), Efron (r = 0.958, p < 0.001), and VBR (r = 0.965, p < 0.001) scales. The intraobserver intraclass correlation coefficients were 0.947, 0.874, 0.810, and 0.920 for the OI, IER, Efron, and VBR, respectively, and the intraobserver coefficients of repeatability were 13.924, 16.111, 17.684, and 16.900, respectively. Furthermore, the interobserver intraclass correlation coefficients were 0.889, 0.880, 0.884, and 0.881 for the OI, IER, Efron, and VBR, respectively, and the interobserver coefficients of repeatability were 15.934, 16.366, 22.059, and 21.373, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: The OI is an objective and reliable method for scoring BR. Its reproducibility was the highest of all the four modalities. The keratograph is recommended, therefore, as a suitable alternative for BR assessment.