Sensitivity and reliability of objective image analysis compared to subjective grading of bulbar hyperaemia

Aims: To establish the sensitivity and reliability of objective image analysis in direct comparison with subjective grading of bulbar hyperaemia. Methods: Images of the same eyes were captured with a range of bulbar hyperaemia caused by vasodilation. The progression was recorded and 45 images extracted. The images were objectively analysed on 14 occasions using previously validated edge-detection and colour-extraction techniques. They were also graded by 14 eye-care practitioners (ECPs) and 14 non-clinicians (NCLs) using the Efron scale. Six ECPs repeated the grading on three separate occasions Results: Subjective grading was only able to differentiate images with differences in grade of 0.70–1.03 Efron units (sensitivity of 0.30–0.53), compared to 0.02–0.09 Efron units with objective techniques (sensitivity of 0.94–0.99). Significant differences were found between ECPs and individual repeats were also inconsistent (p<0.001). Objective analysis was 16× more reliable than subjective analysis. The NCLs used wider ranges of the scale but were more variable than ECPs, implying that training may have an effect on grading. Conclusions: Objective analysis may offer a new gold standard in anterior ocular examination, and should be developed further as a clinical research tool to allow more highly powered analysis, and to enhance the clinical monitoring of anterior eye disease.

[1]  J M Coggins,et al.  Automatic quantitative measurement of ocular hyperemia. , 1995, Current eye research.

[2]  P. Morgan,et al.  The combined influence of knowledge, training and experience when grading contact lens complications , 2003, Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians.

[3]  J. Wolffsohn,et al.  Clinical monitoring of ocular physiology using digital image analysis. , 2003, Contact lens & anterior eye : the journal of the British Contact Lens Association.

[4]  R. Woods,et al.  Clinical Grading of the Upper Palpebral Conjunctiva of Non-Contact Lens Wearers , 2001, Optometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry.

[5]  F W Fitzke,et al.  A new computer assisted objective method for quantifying vascular changes of the bulbar conjunctivae. , 1996, Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians.

[6]  A. Cheung,et al.  Microvascular abnormalities in the bulbar conjunctiva of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. , 2001, Endocrine practice : official journal of the American College of Endocrinology and the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists.

[7]  E. Papas,et al.  Key factors in the subjective and objective assessment of conjunctival erythema. , 2000, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[8]  N. Klaassen-Broekema,et al.  Diffuse and focal hyperaemia of the outer eye in patients with chronic renal failure , 1993, International ophtalmology.

[9]  Nathan Efron,et al.  Validation of grading scales for contact lens complications , 2001, Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians.

[10]  Paul Fieguth,et al.  Automated measurement of bulbar redness. , 2002, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[11]  N. Pritchard,et al.  Subjective and objective measures of corneal staining related to multipurpose care systems. , 2003, Contact lens & anterior eye : the journal of the British Contact Lens Association.

[12]  I L Bailey,et al.  Clinical grading and the effects of scaling. , 1991, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[13]  J S Wolffsohn,et al.  Incremental nature of anterior eye grading scales determined by objective image analysis , 2004, British Journal of Ophthalmology.

[14]  N Efron,et al.  Grading scales for contact lens complications , 1998, Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians.