Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35307542›Full record

ArticleJournal of AAPOS : the official publication of the American Association for Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus2022

Parent-provided photographs as an outcome measure for childhood chalazia.

S Ayse Erzurum, Rui Wu, B Michele Melia, Zhuokai Li, Robert W Arnold, David I Silbert, John W Erickson, Nicholas A Sala, Raymond T Kraker, Jonathan M Holmes and 2 more

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of AAPOS : the official publication of the American Association for Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 49% of its field
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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 1 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

S Ayse ErzurumEye Care Associates Inc, Poland, Ohio. Electronic address: erzurum2020@gmail.com.
Rui WuJaeb Center for Health Research, Tampa, Florida.
B Michele MeliaJaeb Center for Health Research, Tampa, Florida.
Zhuokai LiJaeb Center for Health Research, Tampa, Florida.
Robert W ArnoldAlaska Children's EYE & Strabismus, Anchorage, Alaska.
David I SilbertConestoga Eye, Lancaster, Pennsylvania.
John W EricksonNemours Children's Clinic, Jacksonville, Florida.
Nicholas A SalaPediatric Ophthalmology of Erie, Erie, Pennsylvania.
Raymond T KrakerJaeb Center for Health Research, Tampa, Florida.
Jonathan M HolmesUniversity of Arizona-Tucson, Tucson, Arizona.
Susan A CotterSouthern California College of Optometry at Marshall B. Ketchum University, Fullerton, California.
Pediatric Eye Disease Investigator Group
Jaeb Center for Health Research · USEye Care Associates · USMarshall B. Ketchum University · USNemours Children's Clinic · USUniversity of Arizona · US

Funding

Pediatric Eye Disease Investigator Group Coordinating CenterU10EY011751 · NEI · JAEB CENTER FOR HEALTH RESEARCH, INC. · PI KRAKER, RAYMOND · 1997 to 2018
$75.2M
Pediatric Eye Disease Investigator Group NetworkUG1EY011751 · NEI · JAEB CENTER FOR HEALTH RESEARCH, INC. · PI Raymond Kraker, Stacy Pineles · 2019 to 2026
$53.7M
NEI NIH HHS U10 EY011751NEI NIH HHS UG1 EY011751
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo determine whether smartphone photographs of children's eyelids are reliable for diagnosing the presence of chalazia.

methodsIn this prospective cross-sectional study, 60 participants, 7 months to 16.5 years of age, at four sites were enrolled; all participants had a chalazion measuring at least 2 mm on at least one eyelid based on an in-person clinical examination by a pediatric eye care professional. Smartphone photographs taken by the parent during the office visit were uploaded to the study website. A masked reader assessed each photograph for the presence or absence of chalazia; results were compared with the gold standard clinical examination results. Sensitivity and specificity for the presence of chalazion by eyelid were calculated.

resultsPhotographs were available for 240 eyelids; 85 had at least one chalazion and 155 were without a chalazion based on clinical examination. The masked reader correctly classified 68 of 85 eyelids with at least one chalazion and 151 of 155 eyelids without chalazia for a sensitivity of 80% (95% CI, 72%-86%) and a specificity of 97% (95% CI, 94%-99%). Sensitivity improved to 89% for chalazia 5 mm or larger and 94% when superficially located within the eyelid.

conclusionsParental smartphone photographs appear to be useful in assessing chalazia in children as an alternative to in-office follow-up examinations. These photographs may be a valuable outcome measure in future clinical trials of chalazia treatment, especially when assessing larger lesions.

Indexed as

ChalazionChildCross-Sectional StudiesHumansOutcome Assessment, Health CareParentsProspective Studies

Identifiers

PMID35307542
PMCPMC9086179
OpenAlexW3213110390

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.