Grading static versus dynamic images of contact lens complications

Clinical and Experimental Optometry

Volumn 90, Issue 5, 2007, Pages 361-366

  Efron, Nathan ^a   Chaudry, Aysha ^b  

^a QUEENSLAND UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (Australia)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Complications; Contact lenses; Dynamic image; Grading scales; Static image

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; COMPUTER GRAPHICS; CONJUNCTIVA DISEASE; CONTACT LENS; CORNEA DISEASE; FEMALE; HOSPITALIZATION; HUMAN; MALE; METHODOLOGY; OPTOMETRY; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

COMPUTER GRAPHICS; CONJUNCTIVAL DISEASES; CONTACT LENSES; CORNEAL DISEASES; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; OPTOMETRY; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SEVERITY OF ILLNESS INDEX;

EID: 34547897649     PISSN: 08164622     EISSN: 14440938     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1444-0938.2007.00171.x     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. Efron N. Grading scales for contact lens complications. In : Efron N, ed. Contact Lens Complications. Edinburgh: Butterworth-Heinemann 2004. p 239 243.
2. Phillips AJ, Speedwell L. Contact Lenses. Edinburgh: Butterworth- Heinemann 2007. p 627 631.
3. Efron N. Slit-lamp biomicroscopy. In : Efron N, ed. Contact Lens Complications. Edinburgh: Butterworth-Heinemann 2004. p 2 9.
4. Løfstrom T, Anderson JS, Kruse A. Tarsal abnormalities: a new grading system. CLAO J 1998 24 : 210 215.
5. Efron N. Grading Scales for contact lens complications. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 1998 18 : 182 186.
6. Papas EB. Key factors in the subjective and objective assessment of conjunctival erythema. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2000 41 : 687 691.
7. Efron N, Morgan PB, Katsara SS. Validation of grading scales for contact lens complications. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 2001 21 : 17 29.
8. McMonnies CW, Chapman-Davies A. Assessment of conjunctival hyperemia in contact lens wearers. Part Am J Optom Physiol Opt 1987 64 : 246 250.
9. McMonnies CW, Chapman-Davies A. Assessment of conjunctival hyperemia in contact lens wearers. Part Am J Optom Physiol Opt 1987 64 : 251 255.
10. Berntsen DA, Mitchell GL, Nichols JJ. Reliability of grading lissamine green conjunctival staining. Cornea 2006 25 : 695 700.
11. Dundas M, Walker A, Woods RL. Clinical grading of corneal staining of non-contact lens wearers. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 2001 21 : 30 35.
12. 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.
13. Murphy PJ, Lau JS, Sim MM, Woods RL. How red is a white eye? Clinical grading of normal conjunctival hyperaemia. Eye 2007 21 : 633 638.
14. Efron N, Morgan PB, Jagpal R. Validation of computer morphs for grading contact lens complications. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 2002 22 : 341 349.
15. Chong E, Simpson T, Fonn D. The repeatability of discrete and continuous anterior segment grading scales. Optom Vis Sci 2000 77 : 244 251.
16. Efron N, Morgan PB, Jagpal R. The combined influence of knowledge, training and experience when grading contact lens complications. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 2003 23 : 79 85.
17. Efron N, Morgan PB, Farmer C, Furuborg J, Struk R, Carney LG. Experience and training as determinants of grading reliability when assessing the severity of contact lens complications. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 2003 23 : 119 124.
18. Efron N. Contact Lens Complications. Edinburgh: Butterworth-Heinemann 2004.
19. Lenth RV. Java applets for power and sample size [Computer software Retrieved January 5, 2007, from http://www.stat.uiowa.edu/∼rlenth/Power.
20. Bailey IL, Bullimore MA, Raasch TW, Taylor HR. Clinical grading and the effects of scaling. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1991 32 : 422 432.
21. Barr JT, Schechtman KB, Fink BA, Pierce GE, Pensyl CD, Zadnik K, Gordon MO. Corneal scarring in the Collaborative Longitudinal Evaluation of Keratoconus (CLEK) Study: baseline prevalence and repeatability of detection. Cornea 1999 18 : 34 46.