
pmid: 23108007
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.
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
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
| 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% |
