ArticleJAMA ophthalmology2017
Development and Evaluation of Semiautomated Quantification of Lissamine Green Staining of the Bulbar Conjunctiva From Digital Images.
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 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Repeatability and Reproducibility of the Dry Eye Analyzer in Participants With and Without Symptoms of Dry Eye.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2026Article
- Lissamine Green in Ophthalmology: A Comprehensive Review of Diagnostic and Clinical Applications.Ophthalmology and therapy · 2025Review
- Advanced and interpretable corneal staining assessment through fine grained knowledge distillation.NPJ digital medicine · 2025Article
- Fully automated grading system for the evaluation of punctate epithelial erosions using deep neural networks.The British journal of ophthalmology · 2023Article
- Automated vs. human evaluation of corneal staining.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2022Article
- Automation of dry eye disease quantitative assessment: A review.Clinical & experimental ophthalmology · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Importance: Lissamine green (LG) staining of the conjunctiva is a key biomarker in evaluating ocular surface disease. The disease currently is assessed using relatively coarse subjective scales. Objective assessment would standardize comparisons over time and between clinicians. Objective: To develop a semiautomated, quantitative system to assess lissamine green staining of the bulbar conjunctiva on digital images. Design, Setting, and Participants: Using a standard photography protocol, 35 digital images of the conjunctiva of 11 patients with a diagnosis of dry eye disease based on characteristic signs and symptoms were obtained after topical administration of preservative-free LG, 1%, solution. Images were scored independently by 2 masked ophthalmologists in an academic medical center using the van Bijsterveld and National Eye Institute (NEI) scales. The region of interest was identified by manually marking 7 anatomic landmarks on the images. An objective measure was developed by segmenting the images, forming a vector of key attributes, and then performing a random forest regression. Subjective scores were correlated with the output from a computer algorithm using a cross-validation technique. The ranking of images from least to most staining was compared between the algorithm and the ophthalmologists. The study was conducted from April 26, 2012, through June 2, 2016. Main Outcomes and Measures: Correlation and level of agreement among computerized algorithm scores, van Bijsterveld scale clinical scores, and NEI scale clinical scores. Results: The scores from the automated algorithm correlated well with the mean scores obtained from the gradings of 2 ophthalmologists for the 35 images using the van Bijsterveld scale (Spearman correlation coefficient, rs = 0.79), and moderately with the NEI scale (rs = 0.61) scores. For qualitative ranking of staining, the correlation between the automated algorithm and the 2 ophthalmologists was rs = 0.78 and rs = 0.83. Conclusions and Relevance: The algorithm performed well when evaluating LG staining of the conjunctiva, as evidenced by good correlation with subjective gradings using 2 different grading scales. Future longitudinal studies are needed to assess the responsiveness of the algorithm to change of conjunctival staining over time.
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.