ArticleInternational ophthalmology2018
Validity of a new comprehensive pterygia grading scale for use in clinical research and clinical trial.
Article in International ophthalmology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Accurate detection and grading of pterygium through smartphone by a fusion training model.The British journal of ophthalmology · 2024Article
- Application of a Deep Learning System in Pterygium Grading and Further Prediction of Recurrence with Slit Lamp Photographs.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Computer-Assisted Pterygium Screening System: A Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo determine the reliability and agreement of a new comprehensive pterygium grading scale for use in clinical research and clinical trials.
methodsThirty eyes with pterygia were enrolled in this study. Primary gaze position and lateral gaze position images were taken of each eye with a modified single-lens reflex camera system. Our grading scale includes five parameters: two hyperemia parameters of pterygia on two different gaze position images and three size parameters, quantifying length, width, and area of the cornea encroachment of pterygium, using ImageJ software. All images were graded on the five parameters by two masked, certified reading center graders. Two graders independently graded all the images to determine inter-grader reliability. One grader regraded the images after 3 days to determine intra-grader reliability. Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and inter-rater agreement statistic (κ) calculations were performed.
resultsThe intra-grader reliability for hyperemia grading was high on both primary and lateral gazing positions (κ value is 0.93 and 0.96). The inter-grader reliability for hyperemia grading was also good (κ value is 0.85 and 0.87). The mean value of width, length, and area of the cornea encroachment of pterygium was 4.31 ± 2.04 mm, 2.08 ± 1.43 mm, and 7.84 ± 7.62 mm
conclusionsThere was excellent intra- and inter-observer reproducibility with the new comprehensive grading scale. This scale could lead to the development of standardized grading assessments and quantification of pterygia that would be valid in clinical research and clinical trials.
Indexed as
Identifiers
29080063What 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.