PURPOSE: To examine the grading (interrater) reliability of the Age-Related Eye Disease Study (AREDS) Clinical Lens Grading System (ARLNS). DESIGN: Evaluation of diagnostic test or technology. PARTICIPANTS: One hundred fifty volunteers (284 eyes). METHODS: Participants with lens opacities of varying severity were independently graded at the slit lamp for cataract severity by 2 examiners (retinal or anterior segment specialists) using the ARLNS, which employs 3 standard photographs of increasing severity for classifying each of the 3 major types of opacity. Lens photographs were taken and graded at a reading center using the more detailed AREDS System for Classifying Cataracts from photographs. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The Pearson correlation, weighted-kappa, and limits-of-agreement statistics were used to assess the interrater agreement of the gradings. RESULTS: Examinations were performed on 284 lenses (150 participants). Tests of interrater reliability between pairs of clinicians showed substantial agreement between clinicians for cortical and posterior subcapsular opacities and moderate agreement for nuclear opacities. A similar pattern and strength of agreement was present when comparing scores of retinal versus anterior segment specialists. Interrater agreement between clinical and reading center gradings was not as great as inter-clinician agreement. CONCLUSIONS: Interrater agreements were in the moderate to substantial range for the clinical assessment of lens opacities. Inherent differences in cataract classification systems that rely on slit lamp vs photographic assessments of lens opacities may explain some of the disagreement noted between slit lamp and photographic gradings. Given the interrater reliability statistics for clinicians and the simplicity of the grading procedure, ARLNS is presented for use in studies requiring a simple, inexpensive method for detecting the presence and severity of the major types of lens opacities. FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE(S): The authors have no proprietary or commercial interest in any of the materials discussed in this article.
PURPOSE: To examine the grading (interrater) reliability of the Age-Related Eye Disease Study (AREDS) Clinical Lens Grading System (ARLNS). DESIGN: Evaluation of diagnostic test or technology. PARTICIPANTS: One hundred fifty volunteers (284 eyes). METHODS:Participants with lens opacities of varying severity were independently graded at the slit lamp for cataract severity by 2 examiners (retinal or anterior segment specialists) using the ARLNS, which employs 3 standard photographs of increasing severity for classifying each of the 3 major types of opacity. Lens photographs were taken and graded at a reading center using the more detailed AREDS System for Classifying Cataracts from photographs. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The Pearson correlation, weighted-kappa, and limits-of-agreement statistics were used to assess the interrater agreement of the gradings. RESULTS: Examinations were performed on 284 lenses (150 participants). Tests of interrater reliability between pairs of clinicians showed substantial agreement between clinicians for cortical and posterior subcapsular opacities and moderate agreement for nuclear opacities. A similar pattern and strength of agreement was present when comparing scores of retinal versus anterior segment specialists. Interrater agreement between clinical and reading center gradings was not as great as inter-clinician agreement. CONCLUSIONS: Interrater agreements were in the moderate to substantial range for the clinical assessment of lens opacities. Inherent differences in cataract classification systems that rely on slit lamp vs photographic assessments of lens opacities may explain some of the disagreement noted between slit lamp and photographic gradings. Given the interrater reliability statistics for clinicians and the simplicity of the grading procedure, ARLNS is presented for use in studies requiring a simple, inexpensive method for detecting the presence and severity of the major types of lens opacities. FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE(S): The authors have no proprietary or commercial interest in any of the materials discussed in this article.
Authors: B Thylefors; L T Chylack; K Konyama; K Sasaki; R Sperduto; H R Taylor; S West Journal: Ophthalmic Epidemiol Date: 2002-04 Impact factor: 1.648
Authors: Amitha Domalpally; Ronald P Danis; Emily Y Chew; Traci E Clemons; Susan Reed; John Paul Sangiovanni; Frederick L Ferris Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2013-09-05 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Sapna S Gangaputra; Michael M Altaweel; Qian Peng; David S Friedman; P Kumar Rao; C Stephen Foster; Rosa Y Kim; Susan B Reed; Sunil K Srivastava; Ira G Wong; John H Kempen Journal: Ocul Immunol Inflamm Date: 2011-08 Impact factor: 3.070
Authors: Tiarnan D L Keenan; Qingyu Chen; Elvira Agrón; Yih-Chung Tham; Jocelyn Hui Lin Goh; Xiaofeng Lei; Yi Pin Ng; Yong Liu; Xinxing Xu; Ching-Yu Cheng; Mukharram M Bikbov; Jost B Jonas; Sanjeeb Bhandari; Geoffrey K Broadhead; Marcus H Colyer; Jonathan Corsini; Chantal Cousineau-Krieger; William Gensheimer; David Grasic; Tania Lamba; M Teresa Magone; Michele Maiberger; Arnold Oshinsky; Boonkit Purt; Soo Y Shin; Alisa T Thavikulwat; Zhiyong Lu; Emily Y Chew Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2022-01-03 Impact factor: 14.277
Authors: Ronald Klein; Stacy M Meuer; Chelsea E Myers; Gabriëlle H S Buitendijk; Elena Rochtchina; Farzana Choudhury; Paulus T V M de Jong; Roberta McKean-Cowdin; Sudha K Iyengar; Xiaoyi Gao; Kristine E Lee; Johannes R Vingerling; Paul Mitchell; Caroline C W Klaver; Jie Jin Wang; Barbara E K Klein Journal: Ophthalmic Epidemiol Date: 2014-02 Impact factor: 1.648
Authors: Goran Bjelakovic; Dimitrinka Nikolova; Lise Lotte Gluud; Rosa G Simonetti; Christian Gluud Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2012-03-14