Clinical monitoring of ocular physiology using digital image analysis

Contact Lens and Anterior Eye

Volumn 26, Issue 1, 2003, Pages 27-35

  Wolffsohn, James S ^a   Purslow, Christine ^a  

^a ASTON UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Digital grading; Grading scales; Image analysis; Ocular physiology

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; AUTOMATION; CLINICAL PRACTICE; COLOR VISION; COMPUTER PROGRAM; CONJUNCTIVAL HYPEREMIA; CORNEA DISEASE; CORRELATION ANALYSIS; DIAGNOSTIC VALUE; EYE DISEASE; HUMAN; IMAGE ANALYSIS; LUMINANCE; PATHOPHYSIOLOGY; PATIENT MONITORING; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; RATING SCALE; REPRODUCIBILITY; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; STAINING; VISION; VISUAL THRESHOLD;

EID: 0037347165     PISSN: 13670484     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S1367-0484(02)00062-0     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Owen CG, Fitzke FW, Woodward EG. A new computer-assisted objective method for quantifying vascular changes of the bulbar conjunctivae. Ophthal Physiol Opt 1996;16:430-7.
2. Mandell RB. Slit lamp classification system. J Am Optom Assoc 1987;58:198-201.
3. Woods R. Quantitative slit lamp observations in contact lens practice. J Br Contact Lens Assoc 1989;12:42-5.
4. Efron N. Grading scales for contact lens complications. Ophthal Physiol Opt 1998;18:182-6.
5. Andersen JS, Davies IP, Kruse A, Lofstrom T, Ringmann LA. Handbook of contact lens management. Jacksonville, FL: Vistakon; 1996.
6. McMonnies CW, Chapman-Davies A. Assessment of conjunctival hyperaemia in contact lens wearers. Part 1. Am J Optom Physiol Opt 1987;64:246-50.
7. Lofstrom T, Anderson J, Kruse A. Tarsal abnormalities: a new grading system. CLAO J 1998;24:210-5.
8. Chong T, Simpson TL, Fonn D. The repeatability of discrete and continuous anterior segment grading scales. Optom Vis Sci 2000;77:244-51.
9. MacKinven J, McGuiness CL, Pascal E, Woods RL. Clinical grading of the upper palpebral conjunctiva of non-contact lens wearers. Optom Vis Sci 2001;78:13-8.
10. Dundas M, Walker A, Woods RL. Clinical grading of corneal staining of non-contact lens wearers. Ophthal Physiol Opt 2001;21:30-5.
11. Fieguth P, Simpson TL. Automated measurement of bulbar redness. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2002;43:340-7.
12. Bailey IL, Bullimore MA, Raasch TW, Taylor HR. Clinical grading and the effects of scaling. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1991;32: 422-32.
13. Twelker JD, Bailey IL. Grading conjunctival hyperaemia using a photography-based method. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2000;41:s927.
14. Lloyd M. Lies, statistics, and clinical significance. J Br Contact Lens Assoc 1992;15:67-70.
15. Efron N, Morgan PB, Katsara SS. Validation of grading scales for contact lens complications. Ophthal Physiol Opt 2001;21:17-29.
16. Terry R, Sweeney DF, Wong R, Papas EB. Variability of clinical researchers in contact lens research. Optom Vis Sci 1995;12:16.
17. Doughty MJ, Potvin R, Pritchard N, Fonn D. Evaluation of the range of areas of the fluorescein staining patterns of the tarsal conjunctiva in man. Doc Ophthalmol 1995;89:355-71.
18. Potvin R, Doughty MJ, Fonn D. Tarsal conjunctival morphometry of asymptomatic soft contact lens wearers and non-lens wearers. Int Contact Lens Clin 1994;21:225-30.
19. McMonnies CW, Chapman-Davies A, Holden BA. The vascular response to contact lens wear. Am J Optom Physiol Opt 1982;59: 795-9.
20. 2α-isopropylester eye drops: effects in normal eyes. Br J Ophthalmol 1989;73:419-26.
21. Villumsen J, Ringquist J, Alm A. Image analysis of conjunctival hyperaemia: a personal computer-based system. Acta Ophthalmol 1991;69:536-9.
22. Mainstone JC, Bruce AS, Golding TR. Tear meniscus measurement in the diagnosis of dry eye. Curr Eye Res 1996;15:653-61.
23. Kwong YM, Cho P. Tear meniscus height in normal and dry eyes. Optom Today 2001;4124:28-32.
24. Cox I. Digital imaging in the contact lens practice. Int Contact Lens Clin 1995;22:62-6.
25. Charman WN. Imaging in the 21st century. Ophthal Physiol Opt 1998;18:210-23.
26. Hom MM, Bruce AS. Image-editing techniques for anterior segment and contact lenses. Int Contact Lens Clin 1998;25:46-9.
27. Papas EB. Key factors in the subjective and objective assessment of conjunctival erythema. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2000;41:687-91.
28. Chen PCY, Kovalcheck SW, Zweifach BW. Analysis of microvascular network in bulbar conjunctiva by image processing. Int J Microcirc Clin Exp 1987;6:245-55.
29. Young G, Hunt C, Covey M. Clinical evaluation of factors influencing toric soft contact lens fit. Optom Vis Sci 2002;79:11-9.
30. Willingham FF, Cohen KL, Coggins JM, Tripoli NK, Ogle JW, Goldstein GM. Automatic quantitative measurement of ocular hyperaemia. Curr Eye Res 1995;14:1101-8.
31. Guillon M, Shah D. Objective measurement of contact lens-induced conjunctival redness. Optom Vis Sci 1996;73:596-605.
32. Horak F, Berger U, Menapace R, Schuster N. Quantification of conjunctival vascular reaction by digital imaging. J Allergy Clin Immunol 1996;98:495-500.
33. Maldonado M, Arnau V, Martinez-Costa R, Navea A, Mico FM, Cisneros AL. Reproducibility of digital image analysis for measuring corneal haze after myopic photorefractive keratectomy. Am J Ophthalmol 1997;123:31-41.
34. Simpson TL, Chan A, Fonn D. Measuring ocular redness: first order (luminance and chromaticity) measurements provide more information than second order (spatial structure) measurements. Optom Vis Sci 1998;75:279.