Observational studyInternational ophthalmology2020
Comparison of meibomian gland loss area measurements between two computer programs and intra-inter-observer agreement.
Observational study in International ophthalmology, 2020. 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.
- Intra- and interobserver reliability of ocular surface analyzer LacryDiagInternational journal of ophthalmology · 2024Article
- A multi-center study evaluating the correlation between meibomian gland dysfunction and depressive symptoms.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Meibomian gland atrophy with duration of Sjogren's syndrome in adult females.International ophthalmology · 2022Article
- Comparative of meibomian gland morphology in patients with evaporative dry eye disease versus non-dry eye disease.Scientific reports · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMeibography is a diagnostic test that allows in vivo evaluation of meibomian gland (MG). Nowadays, it is unknown whether the two available computer programs are equivalent to evaluate the glandular loss area.
methodsThis is a prospective, longitudinal, and observational study. A random selection of meibography photographs from healthy patients from the ocular surface clinic at Destellos de Luz foundation is made. The upper eyelid images were taken with the Antares® meibography (CSO, Florence, Italy); they were classified in five sessions with a week of separation between each measurement by an expert observer for each program, Phoenix (MAGL) and ImageJ (LAGB). An analysis of the meibomian gland loss area was performed, calculating it semiautomatically with Phoenix and manually with ImageJ. Intra-observer agreement was assessed through an intra-class correlation coefficient and the mean of standard deviations within subjects. Comparison between the two computational programs MG loss was made trough a nonparametric test.
resultsFifty-four images from x patients (n, 67.3% female) were analyzed. The limits of concordance analysis between the two programs showed a range between - 18.55 and 9.14%. The mean MG loss area through ImageJ by observer 1 was 27.91 ± 14.82% (IC 95% 23.87 to 31.96), and that by observer 2 was 29.05 ± 15.17% (95% CI 24.91 to 33.19). The mean MG loss area through Phoenix by observer 1 was 24.48 ± 13.97% (IC 95% 20.67 to 28.29), and that by observer 2 was 24.93 ± 12.70% (95% CI 21.46, 28.40)
conclusionsThe comparison of the measurement of meibomian gland loss with both programs showed a statistically significant difference. Intra-observer repeatability and inter-observer repeatability were good, with no clinical or statistical difference.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31974824What 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.