Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28570731›Full record

ArticleJAMA ophthalmology2017

Consensus on Diagnostic Criteria of Idiopathic Orbital Inflammation Using a Modified Delphi Approach.

Ilse Mombaerts, Jurij R Bilyk, Geoffrey E Rose, Alan A McNab, Aaron Fay, Peter J Dolman, Richard C Allen, Martin H Devoto, Gerald J Harris, Expert Panel of the Orbital Society

Abstract readConsensus Statement
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA ophthalmology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 48 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
48citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

48 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Orbital manifestations of inflammatory bowel disease - a systematic review.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Ilse MombaertsDepartment of Ophthalmology, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Jurij R BilykWills Eye Hospital, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Geoffrey E RoseMoorfields Eye Hospital & Institute of Ophthalmology, London, England.
Alan A McNabRoyal Victorian Eye & Ear Hospital, East Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Aaron FayDepartment of Ophthalmology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
Peter J DolmanEye Care Center, Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Richard C AllenSection of Ophthalmology, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
Martin H DevotoConsultores Oftalmologicos, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Gerald J HarrisDepartment of Ophthalmology, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee.
Expert Panel of the Orbital Society

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Current practice to diagnose idiopathic orbital inflammation (IOI) is inconsistent, leading to frequent misdiagnosis of other orbital entities, including cancer. By specifying criteria, diagnosis of orbital inflammation will be improved. Objective: To define a set of criteria specific for the diagnosis of IOI. Design, Setting, and Participants: A 3-round modified Delphi process with an expert panel was conducted from June 8, 2015, to January 25, 2016. Fifty-three orbital scientist experts, identified through membership in the Orbital Society, were invited to participate in on online survey and they scored, using 5-point Likert scales, items that are eligible as diagnostic criteria from the literature and from personal experience. The items were clustered around the anatomic subtypes of IOI: idiopathic dacryoadenitis and idiopathic orbital fat inflammation (2 nonmyositic IOIs), and idiopathic orbital myositis (myositic IOI). Items with dissensus were rescored in the second round, and all items with consensus (median, ≥4; interquartile range, ≤1) were ranked by importance in the third round. Main Outcomes and Measures: Consensus on items to be included in the criteria. Results: Of the 53 experts invited to participate, a multinational panel of 35 (66%) individuals with a mean (SD) years of experience of 31 (11) years were included. Consensus was achieved on 7 of 14 clinical and radiologic items and 5 of 7 pathologic items related to diagnosis of nonmyositic IOI, and 11 of 14 clinical and radiologic items and 1 of 5 pathologic items for myositic IOI. There was agreement among panelists to focus on surgical tissue biopsy results in the diagnosis of nonmyositic IOI and on a trial with systemic corticosteroids in myositic IOI. Panelists agreed that a maximum number of 30 IgG4-positive plasma cells per high-power field in the orbital tissue is compatible with the diagnosis of IOI. Conclusions and Relevance: An international panel of experts endorsed consensus diagnostic criteria of IOI. These criteria define a level of exclusion suggested for diagnosis and include tissue biopsy for lesions not confined to the extraocular muscles. This consensus is a step toward developing guidelines for the management of IOI, which needs to be followed by validation studies of the criteria.

Indexed as

Diagnostic Techniques, OphthalmologicalOrbital PseudotumorSocieties, MedicalAdolescentAdultAgedChildDelphi TechniqueHumansMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesUnited StatesYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID28570731
PMCPMC5710199

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.