Dr. Heiko Pult-Optometry and Vision Research, Weinheim, Germany.
Cont Lens Anterior Eye. 2013 Feb;36(1):22-7. doi: 10.1016/j.clae.2012.10.074. Epub 2012 Oct 27.
To analyse repeatability of subjective grading and objective assessment in non-contact infra-red meibography.
Meibography photographs of 24 subjects (female 14; mean age=46; range=19-69 years, upper-lid images=12, lower-lid images=12) were classified in two sessions by three experienced observers (OI, OII, OIII). Relative area or portion affected by meibomian glands (MG) loss was classified applying three different grading scales in randomized order: a four-grade scale (4S) (degree 0=no partial glands; 1=<25% partial glands; 3=25-75% partial glands; 3=>75% partial glands), a pictorial five-grade scale (5S) (degree 0=no meibomian gland loss (MGL); 1=<25% MGL; 3=26-50% MGL; 3=51-75%; 4=>75% MGL) and objectively by a 100-grade scale (DA) applying ImageJ software.
Observed MG loss ranged from 0% to 69%. Intra-observer agreement of the 5S (OI: κ=0.80, p<0.001; OII: κ=0.40, p=0.009; OIII κ=0.81, p<0.001) was better than of the 4S (OI: κ=0.79, p<0.001; OII: κ=0.15, p=0.342; OIII κ=0.50, p=0.0071). Intra-observer agreement of OI and OIII (±0.88 (95% confidence interval), ±1.305) was better than of OII (±2.21) in 4S and 5S (±0.99, ±2.00 and ±0.91; OI, OII and OIII, respectively) while it was relatively similar in DA (±18, ±17 and ±17). Inter-observer agreement was better in DA (OI-OII: ±13, OI-OII: ±19, OII-OIII: ±26) than in 4S (OI-OII: ±1.76; OI-OIII: ±1.29 and OII-OIII: ±1.31) or 5S (OI-OII: ±1.49; OI-OIII: ±0.91 and OII-OIII: ±1.20).
Intra-observer and inter-observer agreement was better in computerized grading followed by the subjective five-grade scale and four-grade scale.
分析非接触式红外睑板腺照相术主观分级和客观评估的重复性。
对 24 名受试者(女性 14 名;平均年龄=46 岁;范围 19-69 岁,上睑图像 12 张,下睑图像 12 张)的睑板腺照相图像在两次会议中由三名有经验的观察者(OI、OII、OIII)进行分类。通过三种不同的分级量表以随机顺序评估相对受睑板腺(MG)丧失影响的区域或部分:四级量表(4S)(0 级=无部分腺体;1=<25%部分腺体;3=25-75%部分腺体;3=>75%部分腺体),五级图谱量表(5S)(0 级=无睑板腺丧失(MGL);1=<25% MGL;3=26-50% MGL;3=51-75%;4=>75% MGL)和使用 ImageJ 软件进行客观分级的 100 级量表(DA)。
观察到的 MG 损失范围为 0%至 69%。5S 的观察者内一致性(OI:κ=0.80,p<0.001;OII:κ=0.40,p=0.009;OIII κ=0.81,p<0.001)优于 4S(OI:κ=0.79,p<0.001;OII:κ=0.15,p=0.342;OIII κ=0.50,p=0.0071)。OI 和 OIII 的观察者内一致性(±0.88(95%置信区间),±1.305)优于 OII 的一致性(±2.21),无论是在 4S 还是 5S 中(±0.99,±2.00 和±0.91;OI、OII 和 OIII,分别),而在 DA 中则相对相似(±18,±17 和±17)。DA 的观察者间一致性(OI-OII:±13,OI-OIII:±19,OII-OIII:±26)优于 4S(OI-OII:±1.76;OI-OIII:±1.29 和 OII-OIII:±1.31)或 5S(OI-OII:±1.49;OI-OIII:±0.91 和 OII-OIII:±1.20)。
计算机化分级的观察者内和观察者间一致性优于主观五级量表和四级量表。