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

被引:70
作者
Murphy, P. J.
Lau, J. S. C.
Sim, M. M. L.
Woods, R. L.
机构
[1] Univ Cardiff Wales, Sch Optometry & Vis Sci, Cardiff CF10 3NB, Wales
[2] Harvard Univ, Sch Med, Schepens Eye Res Inst, Boston, MA 02115 USA
关键词
clinical grading; bulbar redness; conjunctival hyperaemia;
D O I
10.1038/sj.eye.6702295
中图分类号
R77 [眼科学];
学科分类号
100212 ;
摘要
Purpose To quantify the level of normal bulbar conjunctival hyperaemia using the Cornea and Contact Lens Research Unit (CCLRU) grading scale, and to investigate inter-observer agreement. Methods Bulbar conjunctival hyperaemia was assessed by two trained observers, using the CCLRU grading scale (zero to four units) interpolated into 0.1 increments, on the right eye of 121 healthy, non-contact lens-wearing subjects ( male 58, female 63, median age 28 years, range 16-77). The eye was observed using a slit-lamp bio-microscope ( x 10 magnification) under diffuse, white illumination. The subject's position of gaze was directed to allow grading of four quadrants: superior, nasal, inferior, and temporal conjunctiva. Bulbar redness was defined as the average of those four grades of conjunctival hyperaemia. A further twenty subjects were recruited to assess inter-observer agreement ( male 8, female 12, median age 23 years). Results The average bulbar redness was 1.93 (+/- 0.32 SD) units. The nasal (2.3 +/- 0.4) and temporal (2.1 +/- 0.4) quadrants were significantly redder than the superior (1.6 +/- 0.4) and inferior (1.7 +/- 0.4) quadrants (P < 0.0001). Males had redder eyes than females by 0.2 units. Inter-observer 95% limits of agreement for bulbar redness was 0.38 units. Conclusions The average bulbar redness of 1.9 units was higher than expected, reflecting the design of the grading scale. A bulbar redness of greater than 2.6 units may be considered abnormal, and a change in bulbar redness of >= 0.4 units may be significant.
引用
收藏
页码:633 / 638
页数:6
相关论文
共 50 条
[1]  
Albietz Julie M., 2001, CLAO Journal, V27, P35
[2]  
BAILEY IL, 1991, INVEST OPHTH VIS SCI, V32, P422
[3]  
BAIN KE, 2001, CE OPTOM, V4, P105
[4]   SHOULD LEVEL OF MEASUREMENT CONSIDERATIONS AFFECT THE CHOICE OF STATISTIC [J].
BARBEITO, R ;
SIMPSON, TL .
OPTOMETRY AND VISION SCIENCE, 1991, 68 (03) :236-242
[5]   Characteristics of corneal staining in hydrogel contact lens wearers [J].
Begley, CG ;
Barr, JT ;
Edrington, TB ;
Long, WD ;
McKenney, CD ;
Chalmers, RL .
OPTOMETRY AND VISION SCIENCE, 1996, 73 (03) :193-200
[6]   STATISTICAL METHODS FOR ASSESSING AGREEMENT BETWEEN TWO METHODS OF CLINICAL MEASUREMENT [J].
BLAND, JM ;
ALTMAN, DG .
LANCET, 1986, 1 (8476) :307-310
[7]   CHRONIC ALLERGIC CONJUNCTIVITIS [J].
BLOCHMICHEL, E .
INTERNATIONAL OPHTHALMOLOGY CLINICS, 1988, 28 (04) :321-323
[8]   Comparison of two grading methods to evaluate focal narrowing of retinal arterioles in glaucoma [J].
Boehm, AG ;
Bowd, C ;
Vasile, C ;
El-Beltagi, TA ;
Booth, M ;
Zangwill, LM ;
Weinreb, RN .
GRAEFES ARCHIVE FOR CLINICAL AND EXPERIMENTAL OPHTHALMOLOGY, 2002, 240 (10) :810-815
[9]  
BUCKLEY RJ, 2001, CE OPTOM, V4, P101
[10]  
CHEN PC, 1986, INT J MICROCIRC, V5, P200