Journal Home
Search for

Volume 30, Issue 1, Pages 53-59 (March 2007)


View previous. 10 of 14 View next.

Comparison of an objective method of measuring bulbar redness to the use of traditional grading scales

Luigina SorbaraCorresponding Author Informationemail address, Trefford Simpson, Stephanie Duench, Marc Schulze, Desmond Fonn

published online 27 January 2007.

Abstract 

Purpose

The primary objective was to compare measures of bulbar redness objectively using a photometric method with standard grading methods. Measures of redness were made on 24 participants wearing a silicone hydrogel contact lens in one eye for overnight wear. This report compares hyperaemia after 1 week of daily wear (baseline) with redness measured after 6 months of overnight wear.

Method

A new method of objectively measuring bulbar conjunctival redness was performed using the Spectrascan650® Photometer by Photo Research® under fixed illumination. Photometric measures in CIEu* chromaticity values involve the measurement of chromaticity, a physical analogue of redness, greenness and blueness in the image. This method was validated in Part 1 of the study using repeated measurements on the photographic CCLRU scale. In Part 2 of the study, the photographic grading scale (CCLRU) from 0 (none) to 100 (extreme) was used to make the comparison.

Results

Part 1 indicated that the photometer provides a repeatable and reliable measure of bulbar redness (CCC=0.989). A moderately strong and significant correlation was found between the CIEu* chromaticity values and the analogue data (R=0.795, p=0.000) at each measurement session (from baseline to 1 day, 1 week, and 1, 3 and 6 months of overnight wear).

Conclusions

This new standardized and objective method of measuring bulbar redness has great potential to replace subjective grading scales, especially with multi-centre studies, where variability between investigators occurs. This method may also detect smaller changes between visits or between eyes.

Centre for Contact Lens Research, School of Optometry, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario N2L 3G1, Canada

Corresponding Author InformationCorresponding author. Tel.: +1 519 888 4567x33085; fax: +1 519 746 5977.

 This manuscript has not previously been published and is not currently under review with any other journal.

PII: S1367-0484(06)00161-5

doi:10.1016/j.clae.2006.12.003


View previous. 10 of 14 View next.