Advertisement

International Ophthalmology

, Volume 38, Issue 6, pp 2303–2311 | Cite as

Validity of a new comprehensive pterygia grading scale for use in clinical research and clinical trial

  • Ping Huang
  • Jianyan Huang
  • Tudor Tepelus
  • Jyotsna Maram
  • Srinivas Sadda
  • Olivia L. LeeEmail author
Original Paper

Abstract

Purpose

To determine the reliability and agreement of a new comprehensive pterygium grading scale for use in clinical research and clinical trials.

Methods

Thirty eyes with pterygia were enrolled in this study. Primary gaze position and lateral gaze position images were taken of each eye with a modified single-lens reflex camera system. Our grading scale includes five parameters: two hyperemia parameters of pterygia on two different gaze position images and three size parameters, quantifying length, width, and area of the cornea encroachment of pterygium, using ImageJ software. All images were graded on the five parameters by two masked, certified reading center graders. Two graders independently graded all the images to determine inter-grader reliability. One grader regraded the images after 3 days to determine intra-grader reliability. Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and inter-rater agreement statistic (κ) calculations were performed.

Results

The intra-grader reliability for hyperemia grading was high on both primary and lateral gazing positions (κ value is 0.93 and 0.96). The inter-grader reliability for hyperemia grading was also good (κ value is 0.85 and 0.87). The mean value of width, length, and area of the cornea encroachment of pterygium was 4.31 ± 2.04 mm, 2.08 ± 1.43 mm, and 7.84 ± 7.62 mm2, respectively. The intra-grader agreement on width, length, and area were excellent, with ICCs of 0.98 (95% CI 0.96–0.99), 0.99 (95% CI 0.98–1.0), and 0.97 (95% CI 0.94–0.99), respectively. The inter-grader agreement on width, length, and area were also excellent, with ICCs of 0.96 (95% CI 0.90–0.98), 0.99 (95% CI 0.98–0.99), and 0.99 (95% CI 0.97–0.99), respectively.

Conclusions

There was excellent intra- and inter-observer reproducibility with the new comprehensive grading scale. This scale could lead to the development of standardized grading assessments and quantification of pterygia that would be valid in clinical research and clinical trials.

Keywords

Pterygium Grading scale Image 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Dr. Vikas Chopra for providing insight and expertise that greatly assisted the research and for comments that greatly improved the manuscript.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

All authors certify that they have no affiliations with or involvement in any organization or entity with any financial interest (such as honoraria; educational grants; participation in speakers’ bureaus; membership, employment, consultancies, stock ownership, or other equity interest; and expert testimony or patent-licensing arrangements) or non-financial interest (such as personal or professional relationships, affiliations, knowledge, or beliefs) in the subject matter or materials discussed in this manuscript.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee (UCLA Office of the Human Research Protection Program (OHRPP) IRB) and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. 1.
    Twelker JD, Bailey IL, Mannis MJ et al (2000) Evaluating pterygium severity: a survey of corneal specialists. Cornea 19:292–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Taylor HR (1980) Aetiology of climatic droplet keratopathy and pterygium. Br J Ophthalmol 64:154–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Pinkerton OD, Hokama Y, Shigemura LA (1984) Immunologic basis for the pathogenesis of pterygium. Am J Ophthalmol 98:225–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hill JC, Maske R (1989) Pathogenesis of pterygium. Eye (Lond) 3:218–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kwok LS, Coroneo MT (1994) A model for pterygium formation. Cornea 13:219–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cullen AP, Oriowo OM, Voison AC (1997) Anterior eye focusing of peripheral ultraviolet and visible radiation albedo. Clin Exp Optom 80:80–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dushku N, Reid TW (1997) p53 expression in altered limbal basal cells of pingueculae, pterygia, and limbal tumors. Curr Eye Res 16:1179–1192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mackenzie FD, Hirst LW, Battistutta D et al (1992) Risk analysis in the development of pterygia. Ophthalmology 99:1056–1061CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Moran DJ, Hollows FC (1984) Pterygium and ultraviolet radiation: a positive correlation. Br J Ophthalmol 68:343–346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Taylor HR, West SK, Rosenthal FS et al (1989) Corneal changes associated with chronic UV irradiation. Arch Ophthalmol 107:1481–1484CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gumus K, Karakucuk S, Mirza GE et al (2014) Overexpression of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 2 in pterygia may have a predictive value for a higher postoperative recurrence rate. Br J Ophthalmol 98:796–800CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kawano H, Kawano K, Sakamoto T (2011) Separate limbal-conjunctival autograft transplantation using the inferior conjunctiva for primary pterygium. Oman J Ophthalmol 4:120–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hurmeric V, Vaddavalli P, Galor A et al (2013) Single and multiple injections of subconjunctival ranibizumab for early, recurrent pterygium. Clin Ophthalmol 7:467–473PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Carlock BH, Bienstock CA, Rogosnitzky M (2014) Pterygium: nonsurgical treatment using topical dipyridamole: a case report. Case Rep Ophthalmol 5:98–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hirst LW (2011) Cosmesis after pterygium extended removal followed by extended conjunctival transplant as assessed by a new, web-based grading system. Ophthalmology 118:1739–1746CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kim KW, Park SH, Wee SW et al (2013) Overexpression of angiogenin in pterygium body fibroblasts and its association with proliferative potency. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 54:6355–6362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Karalezli A, Kucukerdonmez C, Akova YA (2014) Does topical bevacizumab prevent postoperative recurrence after pterygium surgery with conjunctival autografting? Int J Ophthalmol 7:512–516PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hilmi MR, Che Azemin MZ, Mohd Kamal K (2017) Prediction of changes in visual acuity and contrast sensitivity function by tissue redness after pterygium surgery. Curr Eye Res 42:852–856CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ping Huang
    • 1
  • Jianyan Huang
    • 1
  • Tudor Tepelus
    • 1
  • Jyotsna Maram
    • 1
  • Srinivas Sadda
    • 1
    • 2
  • Olivia L. Lee
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    Email author
  1. 1.Doheny Image Reading CenterDoheny Eye InstituteLos AngelesUSA
  2. 2.Department of Ophthalmology, David Geffen School of MedicineUniversity of California Los AngelesLos AngelesUSA
  3. 3.PasadenaUSA

Personalised recommendations