S Ayse Erzurum1, Rui Wu2, B Michele Melia2, Zhuokai Li2, Robert W Arnold3, David I Silbert4, John W Erickson5, Nicholas A Sala6, Raymond T Kraker2, Jonathan M Holmes7, Susan A Cotter8. 1. Eye Care Associates Inc, Poland, Ohio. Electronic address: erzurum2020@gmail.com. 2. Jaeb Center for Health Research, Tampa, Florida. 3. Alaska Children's EYE & Strabismus, Anchorage, Alaska. 4. Conestoga Eye, Lancaster, Pennsylvania. 5. Nemours Children's Clinic, Jacksonville, Florida. 6. Pediatric Ophthalmology of Erie, Erie, Pennsylvania. 7. University of Arizona-Tucson, Tucson, Arizona. 8. Southern California College of Optometry at Marshall B. Ketchum University, Fullerton, California.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To determine whether smartphone photographs of children's eyelids are reliable for diagnosing the presence of chalazia. METHODS: In this prospective cross-sectional study, 60 participants, 7 months to 16.5 years of age, at four sites were enrolled; all participants had a chalazion measuring at least 2 mm on at least one eyelid based on an in-person clinical examination by a pediatric eye care professional. Smartphone photographs taken by the parent during the office visit were uploaded to the study website. A masked reader assessed each photograph for the presence or absence of chalazia; results were compared with the gold standard clinical examination results. Sensitivity and specificity for the presence of chalazion by eyelid were calculated. RESULTS: Photographs were available for 240 eyelids; 85 had at least one chalazion and 155 were without a chalazion based on clinical examination. The masked reader correctly classified 68 of 85 eyelids with at least one chalazion and 151 of 155 eyelids without chalazia for a sensitivity of 80% (95% CI, 72%-86%) and a specificity of 97% (95% CI, 94%-99%). Sensitivity improved to 89% for chalazia 5 mm or larger and 94% when superficially located within the eyelid. CONCLUSIONS: Parental smartphone photographs appear to be useful in assessing chalazia in children as an alternative to in-office follow-up examinations. These photographs may be a valuable outcome measure in future clinical trials of chalazia treatment, especially when assessing larger lesions.
PURPOSE: To determine whether smartphone photographs of children's eyelids are reliable for diagnosing the presence of chalazia. METHODS: In this prospective cross-sectional study, 60 participants, 7 months to 16.5 years of age, at four sites were enrolled; all participants had a chalazion measuring at least 2 mm on at least one eyelid based on an in-person clinical examination by a pediatric eye care professional. Smartphone photographs taken by the parent during the office visit were uploaded to the study website. A masked reader assessed each photograph for the presence or absence of chalazia; results were compared with the gold standard clinical examination results. Sensitivity and specificity for the presence of chalazion by eyelid were calculated. RESULTS: Photographs were available for 240 eyelids; 85 had at least one chalazion and 155 were without a chalazion based on clinical examination. The masked reader correctly classified 68 of 85 eyelids with at least one chalazion and 151 of 155 eyelids without chalazia for a sensitivity of 80% (95% CI, 72%-86%) and a specificity of 97% (95% CI, 94%-99%). Sensitivity improved to 89% for chalazia 5 mm or larger and 94% when superficially located within the eyelid. CONCLUSIONS: Parental smartphone photographs appear to be useful in assessing chalazia in children as an alternative to in-office follow-up examinations. These photographs may be a valuable outcome measure in future clinical trials of chalazia treatment, especially when assessing larger lesions.
Authors: Daniel M O'Connor; Olivia S Jew; Marissa J Perman; Leslie A Castelo-Soccio; Flaura K Winston; Patrick J McMahon Journal: JAMA Dermatol Date: 2017-12-01 Impact factor: 10.282