S Grace Prakalapakorn1, Marguerite C Weinert2, Sandra S Stinnett3. 1. Department of Ophthalmology, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina; Department of Pediatrics, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina. Electronic address: grace.prakalapakorn@duke.edu. 2. Massachusetts Eye and Ear, Boston, Massachusetts; Department of Ophthalmology, Harvard School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts. 3. Department of Ophthalmology, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina; Department of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina.
Abstract
PURPOSE: This proof-of-concept study evaluates the ability to assess eyelid measurements and the reproducibility of eyelid measurements using a simple measurement tool paired with digital cell phone photography in children. METHODS: Seventy consecutive patients and their siblings, 2-19 years of age, were prospectively enrolled. Participants underwent clinical examination and cell phone photography with a simple measurement tool. An ophthalmologist and nonophthalmologist assessed photographs for interpalpebral fissure distance (IPFD), margin reflex distance-1 (MRD1), and levator function (LF). Clinical examinations and photographs were repeated on the same day in a random sample (n = 20). The agreement of grading photographs compared to clinical examination was assessed using Bland-Altman plots. Intra-grader repeatability of the clinical examination, repeatability of photographic technique, and interobserver reproducibility of photographic assessment was evaluated with intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC). RESULTS: Of photographs acquired, both graders considered quality good/fair in 100% to assess IPFD and MRD1, and 70% to assess LF. The mean difference (limits of agreement) in mm between clinical examination and photographic assessment was 1.1 (-1.5 to 3.8) for IPFD, 0.7 (-1.8 to 3.1) for MRD1, and 1.1 (-3.5 to 5.7) for LF. Intraobserver repeatability on clinical examination was excellent for IPFD (ICC = 0.81), MRD1 (ICC = 0.88), and LF (ICC = 0.94). Repeatability of photographic technique was fair for IPFD (ICC = 0.44) and good for MRD1 (ICC = 0.74) and LF (ICC = 0.77). Interobserver photographic assessment repeatability was excellent for IPFD (ICC = 0.94), MRD1 (ICC = 0.96), and LF (ICC = 0.92). CONCLUSIONS: Photographic assessment of eyelid measurements in children is possible, highly reproducible between graders, and enables documentation for future comparison.
PURPOSE: This proof-of-concept study evaluates the ability to assess eyelid measurements and the reproducibility of eyelid measurements using a simple measurement tool paired with digital cell phone photography in children. METHODS: Seventy consecutive patients and their siblings, 2-19 years of age, were prospectively enrolled. Participants underwent clinical examination and cell phone photography with a simple measurement tool. An ophthalmologist and nonophthalmologist assessed photographs for interpalpebral fissure distance (IPFD), margin reflex distance-1 (MRD1), and levator function (LF). Clinical examinations and photographs were repeated on the same day in a random sample (n = 20). The agreement of grading photographs compared to clinical examination was assessed using Bland-Altman plots. Intra-grader repeatability of the clinical examination, repeatability of photographic technique, and interobserver reproducibility of photographic assessment was evaluated with intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC). RESULTS: Of photographs acquired, both graders considered quality good/fair in 100% to assess IPFD and MRD1, and 70% to assess LF. The mean difference (limits of agreement) in mm between clinical examination and photographic assessment was 1.1 (-1.5 to 3.8) for IPFD, 0.7 (-1.8 to 3.1) for MRD1, and 1.1 (-3.5 to 5.7) for LF. Intraobserver repeatability on clinical examination was excellent for IPFD (ICC = 0.81), MRD1 (ICC = 0.88), and LF (ICC = 0.94). Repeatability of photographic technique was fair for IPFD (ICC = 0.44) and good for MRD1 (ICC = 0.74) and LF (ICC = 0.77). Interobserver photographic assessment repeatability was excellent for IPFD (ICC = 0.94), MRD1 (ICC = 0.96), and LF (ICC = 0.92). CONCLUSIONS: Photographic assessment of eyelid measurements in children is possible, highly reproducible between graders, and enables documentation for future comparison.
Authors: Andrew G Coombes; Charanjit S Sethi; W Niall Kirkpatrick; Norman Waterhouse; Martin H Kelly; Naresh Joshi Journal: Plast Reconstr Surg Date: 2007-09 Impact factor: 4.730
Authors: Douglas T Edwards; George B Bartley; David O Hodge; Colum A Gorman; Elizabeth A Bradley Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2004-05 Impact factor: 12.079