ArticleThe American journal of tropical medicine and hygiene2017
Trachomatous Scar Ranking: A Novel Outcome for Trachoma Studies.
Article in The American journal of tropical medicine and hygiene, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Expanding a photographic grading system for trachomatous scarring.International health · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
AbstractWe evaluated a new trachoma scarring ranking system with potential use in clinical research. The upper right tarsal conjunctivas of 427 individuals from Ethiopian villages with hyperendemic trachoma were photographed. An expert grader first assigned a scar grade to each photograph using the 1981 World Health Organization (WHO) grading system. Then, all photographs were ranked from least (rank = 1) to most scarring (rank = 427). Photographic grading found 79 (18.5%) conjunctivae without scarring (C0), 191 (44.7%) with minimal scarring (C1), 105 (24.6%) with moderate scarring (C2), and 52 (12.2%) with severe scarring (C3). The ranking method demonstrated good internal validity, exhibiting a monotonic increase in the median rank across the levels of the 1981 WHO grading system. Intrarater repeatability was better for the ranking method (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.84, 95% CI = 0.74-0.94). Exhibiting better internal and external validity, this ranking method may be useful for evaluating the difference in scarring between groups of individuals.
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.