How red is a white eye? Clinical grading of normal conjunctival hyperaemia

Eye

Volumn 21, Issue 5, 2007, Pages 633-638

  Murphy, P J ^a   Lau, J S C ^a   Sim, M M L ^a   Woods, R L ^b  

^a CARDIFF UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^b SCHEPENS EYE RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CLINICAL ASSESSMENT TOOL; CONJUNCTIVAL HYPEREMIA; CONTACT LENS; FEMALE; GAZE; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; ILLUMINATION; INTERRATER RELIABILITY; MALE; NORMAL HUMAN; NORMAL VALUE; OBSERVER VARIATION; RATING SCALE; SEX DIFFERENCE; SLIT LAMP;

EID: 34248395551     PISSN: 0950222X     EISSN: 14765454     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/sj.eye.6702295     Document Type: Article

References (51)

1. Albietz JM. Conjunctival histologic findings of dry eye and non-dry eye contact lens wearing subjects. CLAO J 2001; 27: 35-39.
2. Bloch-Michel E. Chronic allergic conjunctivitis. Int Ophthalmol Clin 1988; 28: 321-323.
3. Donshik PC. Allergic conjunctivitis. Int Ophthalmol Clin 1988; 28: 294-301.
4. Williams CPR, McGill JI. Allergic eye disease: An overview. CE Optom 2001; 4: 97-100.
5. Soni PS, Horner DG, Ross J. Ocular response to lens care systems in adolescent soft contact lens wearers. Optom Vis Sci 1996; 73 70-85.
6. Wolffsohn JS. Contact lens related red eye. CE Optom 2001; 4 110-112.
7. Marzulli FN, Simon ME. Eye irritation from topically applied drugs and cosmetics: Pre-clinical studies. Am J Optom Arch Am Acad Optom 1971; 48: 61-79.
8. Chen PC, Li SG, Zweifach BW. Comparisons of morphometric alterations in human bulbar conjunctiva microvascular network in hypertension and diabetes. Int J Microcirc Clin Exp 1986; 5: 200.
9. Bain KE. Differential diagnosis of the red eye. CE Optom 2001; 4: 105-109.
10. Buckley RJ. Inflammatory disease of the anterior eye. CE Optom 2001; 4: 101-104.
11. Millis E. Contact lenses and the red eye. Contact Lens Ant Eye 1997; 20(Suppl): 5-10.
12. Paton D. The conjunctival sign of sickle cell disease. Arch Ophthalmol 1961; 66: 90-94.
13. Sloan PG. Ocular side effects of systemic medication. Am J Optom Arch Am Acad Optom 1962; 39: 459-470.
14. van Herick W, Shaffer RN, Schwartz A. Estimation of width of angle of anterior chamber: Incidence and significance of the narrow angle. Am J Ophthalmol 1969; 68: 626-629.
15. Teich SA, Walsh JB. A grading system for iris neovascularization: prognostic implication for treatment. Ophthalmology 1981; 88 1102-1106.
16. Niessen AGJE, van den Berg TJTP, Langerhorst CT, Bossuyt PMM. Grading of retinal nerve fibre layer with a photographic reference set. Am J Ophthalmol 1995; 120: 577-586.
17. Boehm AG, Bowd C, Vasile C, El-Beltagi TA, Booth M, Zangwill LM et al. Comparison of two grading methods to evaluate focal narrowing of retinal arterioles in glaucoma. Graef Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2002; 240: 810-815.
18. Kinyoun JL, Martin DC, Fujimoto WT, Leonetti DL. Ophthalmoscopy versus fundus photographs for detecting and grading diabetic retinopathy. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1992; 33: 1888-1893.
19. Kanski JJ. Clinical Ophthalmology: A Systematic Approach, 5th ed. Butterworth-Heinemann: Oxford, 2003.
20. Lofstrom T, Anderson JS, Kruse A. Tarsal abnormalities: A new grading system. CLAO J 1998; 24: 210-215.
21. Chylack LT, Leske MC, Sperduto R, Khu P, McCarthy D. Lens opacities classification system. Arch Ophthalmol 1988; 106: 330-344.
22. McMonnies CW, Chapman-Davies A. Assessment of conjunctival hyperemia in contact lens wearers. Part 1. Am J Optom Physiol Opt 1987; 64 246-250.
23. Woods RL. Quantitative slit lamp observations in contact lens practice. J BCLA Sci Meetings 1989; 12: 42-45.
24. Cornea and Contact Lens Research Unit (CCLRU) Grading Scales (1996). University of New South Wales, School of Optometry Sydney, Australia.
25. Terry RL, Schnider CM, Holden BA, Cornish R, Grant T, Sweeney D et al. CCLRU standards for success of daily and extended wear contact lenses. Optom Vis Sci 1993; 70: 234-243.
26. Efron N. Clinical application of grading scales for contact lens complications. Optician 1999; 5604(213): 26-35.
27. Holden BA, Sweeney DF, Swarbrick HA, Vannas A, Nilsson KT, Efron N. The vascular response to long-term extended contact lens wear. Clin Exp Optom 1986; 69: 112-119.
28. McMonnies CW, Chapman-Davies A. Assessment of conjunctival hyperemia in contact lens wearers. Part 2. Am J Optom Physiol Opt 1987; 64 251-255.
29. Begley CG, Barr JT, Edrington TB, Long WD, McKenney CD, Chalmers RL. Characteristics of corneal staining in hydrogel contact lens wearers. Optom Vis Sci 1996; 73: 193-200.
30. Guillon M, Shah D. Objective measurement of contact lens-induced conjunctival redness. Optom Vis Sci 1996; 73: 595-605.
31. Papas EB, Vajdic CM, Austen R, Holden BA. High oxygen transmissibility soft contact lenses do not induce limbal hyperaemia. Curr Eye Res 1997; 16: 942-948.
32. Bailey IL, Bullimore MA, Raasch TW, Taylor HR. Clinical grading and the effects of scaling. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1991; 32: 422-432.
33. Sparrow JM, Frost NA, Pantelides EP, Laidlaw DAH. Decimalization of the Oxford Clinical Cataract Classification and Grading System. Ophthal Epidemiol 2000; 7: 49-60.
34. Papas EB. Key factors in the subjective and objective assessment of conjunctival erythema. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2000; 41: 687-691.
35. Villumsen J, Ringquist J, Alm A. Image analysis of conjunctival hyperemia. Acta Ophthalmol 1991; 69: 536-539.
36. Willingham FF, Cohen KL, Coggins JM, Tripoli NK, Ogle JW, Goldstein GM. Automatic quantitative measurement of ocular hyperemia. Curr Eye Res 1995; 14: 1101-1108.
37. 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: 430-437.
38. Efron N, Morgan PB, Jagpal R. Validation of computer morphs for grading contact lens complications. Ophthal Physiol Opt 2002; 22: 341-349.
39. Fieguth P, Simpson TL. Automated measurement of bulbar redness. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2002; 43: 340-347.
40. Wolffsohn JS, Purslow C. Clinical monitoring of ocular physiology using digital image analysis. Contact Lens Ant Eye 2003; 26: 27-35.
41. Barbeito R, Simpson TL. Should level of measurement considerations affect the choice of statistic? Optom Vis Sci 1991; 68: 236-242.
42. Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1986; 1(8476): 307-310.
43. Dundas M, Walker A, Woods RL. Clinical grading of corneal staining of non-contact lens wearers. Ophthal Physiol Opt 2001; 21: 30-35.
44. MacKinven J, McGuinness CL, Pascal E, Woods RL. Clinical grading of the upper palpebral conjunctiva of non-contact lens wearers. Optom Vis Sci 2001; 78: 13-18.
45. McMonnies CW, Ho A. Conjunctival hyperaemia in non-contact lens wearers. Acta Ophthalmol 1991; 69: 799-801.
46. McMonnies CW, Chapman-Davies A, Holden BA. The vascular response to contact lens wear. Am J Optom Physiol Opt 1982; 59: 795-799.
47. Efron N, Morgan PB, Jagpal R. The combined influence of knowledge, training and experience when grading contact lens complications. Ophthal Physiol Opt 2003; 23: 79-85.
48. Chong T, Simpson TL, Fonn D. The repeatability of discrete and continuous anterior segment grading scales. Optom Vis Sci 2000; 77: 244-251.
49. Efron N. Grading scales for contact lens complications. Ophthal Physiol Opt 1998; 18: 182-186.
50. Lloyd M. Lies, statistics and clinical significance. J Br Contact Lens Assoc 1992; 15: 67-70.
51. Efron N, Morgan PB, Katsara SS. Validation of grading scales for contact lens complications. Ophthal Physiol Opt 2001; 21: 17-29.