PURPOSE: To evaluate the within- and between-reader reliability and the interrelation between 2 methods of grading meibography images. METHODS: A video meibography sequence (1200 frames) was captured from 290 patients using near-infrared light (650-700 nm) and a near-infrared CCD camera. One frame was selected for grading by 2 masked readers using 2 scales, where the first reader graded the image on 2 occasions and the second reader graded the image on 1 occasion. The first grading scale was a gestalt assessment (categorically graded), which is an assessment of partial meibomian glands within the image. The second was a count of individual whole glands. Within- and between-reader reliability and concurrent validity between the scales were examined. RESULTS: Within-reader reliability of the gestalt scale was moderate to high (simple kappa = 0.78, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.71-0.85 and weighted kappa = 0.91, 95% CI = 0.88-0.95). Within-reader reliability of individual gland counting was moderate via a 95% limits of agreement analysis (-2.84-2.76 glands). Between-reader reliability of the gestalt scale was fair (simple kappa = 0.38, 95% CI = 0.30-0.46 and weighted kappa = 0.57, 95% CI = 0.47-0.68). Between-reader reliability of gland counting was fair via a 95% limits of agreement analysis (-4.46-5.08 glands). There was a strong relation between the gestalt scale and gland counting indicating good concurrent validity (Z = -15.15, P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: These methods of grading meibography images demonstrate good within-reader reliability and fair between-reader reliability. Responsiveness to change will need to be addressed in future studies.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Nichols et al. (2005) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: