ArticleCornea2017
Precision of Epithelial Defect Measurements.
Article in Cornea, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Exploratory Phase II Multicenter, Open-Label, Clinical Trial of ST266, a Novel Secretome for Treatment of Persistent Corneal Epithelial Defects.Translational vision science & technology · 2022Trial
- Association of Deep Learning Imaging Algorithm Measures of Microbial Keratitis With Vision Outcomes.Cornea · 2026Article
- Clinical Applications of Artificial Intelligence in Corneal Diseases.Vision (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Open-Source Automatic Biomarker Measurement on Slit-Lamp Photography to Estimate Visual Acuity in Microbial Keratitis.Translational vision science & technology · 2021Article
- Open-Source Automatic Segmentation of Ocular Structures and Biomarkers of Microbial Keratitis on Slit-Lamp Photography Images Using Deep Learning.IEEE journal of biomedical and health informatics · 2021Article
- Measurement Reliability for Keratitis Morphology.Cornea · 2020Article
- Use of 'U-shaped tool for follow up of corneal ulcer cases in the COVID-19 pandemic.Indian journal of ophthalmology · 2020Article
- Algorithm Variability in Quantification of Epithelial Defect Size in Microbial Keratitis Images.Cornea · 2020Article
- Novel Image-Based Analysis for Reduction of Clinician-Dependent Variability in Measurement of the Corneal Ulcer Size.Cornea · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo ensure optimal care of patients, cornea specialists measure corneal features, including epithelial defects (ED), with slit-lamp calipers. However, caliper measurements are subject to interphysician variability. We examined the extent of variability in ED measurements between cornea specialists and discuss the potential clinical impact.
methodsA total of 48 variably sized EDs were created in pig eyes. Three cornea specialists measured the maximum vertical and horizontal ED lengths to the nearest 10th of a millimeter using slit-lamp microscopy. An absolute difference in ED measurement between cornea specialists of 0.5 mm was chosen to be the a priori threshold for clinical significance and was evaluated by the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Interrater reliability was assessed by intraclass correlation coefficients.
resultsThe average absolute difference in the vertical ED length between pairs of examiners ranged from 0.54 to 0.63 mm, and that of the horizontal ED length ranged from 0.44 to 0.46 mm. These differences in ED measurement were not significantly different from 0.5 mm (all P > 0.06). However, pairs of examiners differed in vertical ED length measurements by >0.5 mm in 44% to 52% of EDs and by >1.0 mm in 13% to 17% of EDs. Pairs of examiners differed in horizontal ED length measurements by >0.5 mm in 31% to 40% of EDs and by >1.0 mm in 10% to 15% of EDs. The intraclass correlation coefficient was 0.85 (95% confidence interval, 0.77-0.91) for vertical and 0.84 (95% confidence interval, 0.74-0.90) for horizontal ED measurements.
conclusionsCornea specialists showed good reliability in the measured EDs; however, depending on the threshold for clinical significance, a nontrivial percentage of cases have high interexaminer clinical variability.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.