Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
image/svg+xml Jakob Voss, based on art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina and Beao Closed Access logo, derived from PLoS Open Access logo. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Closed_Access_logo_transparent.svg Jakob Voss, based on art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina and Beao Contact Lens and Ant...arrow_drop_down
image/svg+xml Jakob Voss, based on art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina and Beao Closed Access logo, derived from PLoS Open Access logo. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Closed_Access_logo_transparent.svg Jakob Voss, based on art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina and Beao
Contact Lens and Anterior Eye
Article . 2013 . Peer-reviewed
License: Elsevier TDM
Data sources: Crossref
versions View all 2 versions
addClaim

Comparison of subjective grading and objective assessment in meibography

Authors: Heiko, Pult; Britta, Riede-Pult;

Comparison of subjective grading and objective assessment in meibography

Abstract

To analyse repeatability of subjective grading and objective assessment in non-contact infra-red meibography.Meibography photographs of 24 subjects (female 14; mean age=46; range=19-69 years, upper-lid images=12, lower-lid images=12) were classified in two sessions by three experienced observers (OI, OII, OIII). Relative area or portion affected by meibomian glands (MG) loss was classified applying three different grading scales in randomized order: a four-grade scale (4S) (degree 0=no partial glands; 1=75% partial glands), a pictorial five-grade scale (5S) (degree 0=no meibomian gland loss (MGL); 1=75% MGL) and objectively by a 100-grade scale (DA) applying ImageJ software.Observed MG loss ranged from 0% to 69%. Intra-observer agreement of the 5S (OI: κ=0.80, p<0.001; OII: κ=0.40, p=0.009; OIII κ=0.81, p<0.001) was better than of the 4S (OI: κ=0.79, p<0.001; OII: κ=0.15, p=0.342; OIII κ=0.50, p=0.0071). Intra-observer agreement of OI and OIII (±0.88 (95% confidence interval), ±1.305) was better than of OII (±2.21) in 4S and 5S (±0.99, ±2.00 and ±0.91; OI, OII and OIII, respectively) while it was relatively similar in DA (±18, ±17 and ±17). Inter-observer agreement was better in DA (OI-OII: ±13, OI-OII: ±19, OII-OIII: ±26) than in 4S (OI-OII: ±1.76; OI-OIII: ±1.29 and OII-OIII: ±1.31) or 5S (OI-OII: ±1.49; OI-OIII: ±0.91 and OII-OIII: ±1.20).Intra-observer and inter-observer agreement was better in computerized grading followed by the subjective five-grade scale and four-grade scale.

Keywords

Adult, Male, Infrared Rays, Meibomian Glands, Reproducibility of Results, Diagnostic Techniques, Ophthalmological, Middle Aged, Young Adult, ROC Curve, Tears, Eyelid Diseases, Humans, Female, Diagnosis, Computer-Assisted, Aged

  • BIP!
    Impact byBIP!
    selected citations
    These citations are derived from selected sources.
    This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    265
    popularity
    This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
    Top 1%
    influence
    This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    Top 1%
    impulse
    This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
    Top 10%
Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
selected citations
These citations are derived from selected sources.
This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Citations provided by BIP!
popularity
This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Popularity provided by BIP!
influence
This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Influence provided by BIP!
impulse
This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Impulse provided by BIP!
265
Top 1%
Top 1%
Top 10%
Upload OA version
Are you the author of this publication? Upload your Open Access version to Zenodo!
It’s fast and easy, just two clicks!