A Comparative Study of Clinical vs. Digital Exophthalmometry Measurement Methods

Background. A number of orbital diseases may be evaluated based on the degree of exophthalmos, but there is still no gold standard method for the measurement of this parameter. In this study we compare two exophthalmometry measurement methods (digital photography and clinical) with regard to reprodu...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Tháıs de Sous Pereira, Cristina Hiromi Kuniyoshi, Cristiane de Almeida Leite, Eloisa M. M. S. Gebrim, Mário L. R. Monteiro, Allan C. Pieroni Gonçalves
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Hindawi Limited 2020-01-01
Series:Journal of Ophthalmology
Online Access:http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2020/1397410
id doaj-b29b05d32b6d419893821000f420d757
record_format Article
spelling doaj-b29b05d32b6d419893821000f420d7572020-11-25T02:59:32ZengHindawi LimitedJournal of Ophthalmology2090-004X2090-00582020-01-01202010.1155/2020/13974101397410A Comparative Study of Clinical vs. Digital Exophthalmometry Measurement MethodsTháıs de Sous Pereira0Cristina Hiromi Kuniyoshi1Cristiane de Almeida Leite2Eloisa M. M. S. Gebrim3Mário L. R. Monteiro4Allan C. Pieroni Gonçalves5Laboratory of Investigation in Ophthalmology (LIM 33), Division of Ophthalmology, University of São Paulo Medical School, São Paulo, BrazilDepartment of Radiology, University of São Paulo Medical School, São Paulo, BrazilLaboratory of Investigation in Ophthalmology (LIM 33), Division of Ophthalmology, University of São Paulo Medical School, São Paulo, BrazilDepartment of Radiology, University of São Paulo Medical School, São Paulo, BrazilLaboratory of Investigation in Ophthalmology (LIM 33), Division of Ophthalmology, University of São Paulo Medical School, São Paulo, BrazilLaboratory of Investigation in Ophthalmology (LIM 33), Division of Ophthalmology, University of São Paulo Medical School, São Paulo, BrazilBackground. A number of orbital diseases may be evaluated based on the degree of exophthalmos, but there is still no gold standard method for the measurement of this parameter. In this study we compare two exophthalmometry measurement methods (digital photography and clinical) with regard to reproducibility and the level of correlation and agreement with measurements obtained with Computerized Tomography (CT) measurements. Methods. Seventeen patients with bilateral proptosis and 15 patients with normal orbits diseases were enrolled. Patients underwent orbital CT, Hertel exophthalmometry (HE) and standardized frontal and side facial photographs by a single trained photographer. Exophthalmometry measurements with HE, the digital photographs and axial CT scans were obtained twice by the same examiner and once by another examiner. Pearson correlation coefficient (PCC) was used to assess correlations between methods. Validity between methods was assessed by mean differences, interintraclass correlation coefficients (ICC’s), and Bland–Altman plots. Results. Mean values were significantly higher in the proptosis group (34 orbits) than in the normal group (30 orbits), regardless of the method. Within each group, mean digital exophthalmometry measurements (24.32 ± 5.17 mm and 18.62 ± 3.87 mm) were significantly greater than HE measurements (20.87 ± 2.53 mm and 17.52 ± 2.67 mm) with broader range of standard deviation. Inter-/intraclass correlation coefficients were 0.95/0.93 for clinical, 0.92/0.74 for digital, and 0.91/0.95 for CT measurements. Correlation coefficients between HE and CT scan measurements in both groups of subjects (r = 0.84 and r = 0.91, p<0.05) were greater than those between digital and CT scan measurements (r = 0.61 and r = 0.75, p<0.05). On the Bland–Altman plots, HE showed better agreement to CT measurements compared to the digital photograph method in both groups studied. Conclusions. Although photographic digital exophthalmometry showed strong correlation and agreement with CT scan measurements, it still performs worse than and is not as accurate as clinical Hertel exophthalmometry. This trail is registered with NCT01999790.http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2020/1397410
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Tháıs de Sous Pereira
Cristina Hiromi Kuniyoshi
Cristiane de Almeida Leite
Eloisa M. M. S. Gebrim
Mário L. R. Monteiro
Allan C. Pieroni Gonçalves
spellingShingle Tháıs de Sous Pereira
Cristina Hiromi Kuniyoshi
Cristiane de Almeida Leite
Eloisa M. M. S. Gebrim
Mário L. R. Monteiro
Allan C. Pieroni Gonçalves
A Comparative Study of Clinical vs. Digital Exophthalmometry Measurement Methods
Journal of Ophthalmology
author_facet Tháıs de Sous Pereira
Cristina Hiromi Kuniyoshi
Cristiane de Almeida Leite
Eloisa M. M. S. Gebrim
Mário L. R. Monteiro
Allan C. Pieroni Gonçalves
author_sort Tháıs de Sous Pereira
title A Comparative Study of Clinical vs. Digital Exophthalmometry Measurement Methods
title_short A Comparative Study of Clinical vs. Digital Exophthalmometry Measurement Methods
title_full A Comparative Study of Clinical vs. Digital Exophthalmometry Measurement Methods
title_fullStr A Comparative Study of Clinical vs. Digital Exophthalmometry Measurement Methods
title_full_unstemmed A Comparative Study of Clinical vs. Digital Exophthalmometry Measurement Methods
title_sort comparative study of clinical vs. digital exophthalmometry measurement methods
publisher Hindawi Limited
series Journal of Ophthalmology
issn 2090-004X
2090-0058
publishDate 2020-01-01
description Background. A number of orbital diseases may be evaluated based on the degree of exophthalmos, but there is still no gold standard method for the measurement of this parameter. In this study we compare two exophthalmometry measurement methods (digital photography and clinical) with regard to reproducibility and the level of correlation and agreement with measurements obtained with Computerized Tomography (CT) measurements. Methods. Seventeen patients with bilateral proptosis and 15 patients with normal orbits diseases were enrolled. Patients underwent orbital CT, Hertel exophthalmometry (HE) and standardized frontal and side facial photographs by a single trained photographer. Exophthalmometry measurements with HE, the digital photographs and axial CT scans were obtained twice by the same examiner and once by another examiner. Pearson correlation coefficient (PCC) was used to assess correlations between methods. Validity between methods was assessed by mean differences, interintraclass correlation coefficients (ICC’s), and Bland–Altman plots. Results. Mean values were significantly higher in the proptosis group (34 orbits) than in the normal group (30 orbits), regardless of the method. Within each group, mean digital exophthalmometry measurements (24.32 ± 5.17 mm and 18.62 ± 3.87 mm) were significantly greater than HE measurements (20.87 ± 2.53 mm and 17.52 ± 2.67 mm) with broader range of standard deviation. Inter-/intraclass correlation coefficients were 0.95/0.93 for clinical, 0.92/0.74 for digital, and 0.91/0.95 for CT measurements. Correlation coefficients between HE and CT scan measurements in both groups of subjects (r = 0.84 and r = 0.91, p<0.05) were greater than those between digital and CT scan measurements (r = 0.61 and r = 0.75, p<0.05). On the Bland–Altman plots, HE showed better agreement to CT measurements compared to the digital photograph method in both groups studied. Conclusions. Although photographic digital exophthalmometry showed strong correlation and agreement with CT scan measurements, it still performs worse than and is not as accurate as clinical Hertel exophthalmometry. This trail is registered with NCT01999790.
url http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2020/1397410
work_keys_str_mv AT thaısdesouspereira acomparativestudyofclinicalvsdigitalexophthalmometrymeasurementmethods
AT cristinahiromikuniyoshi acomparativestudyofclinicalvsdigitalexophthalmometrymeasurementmethods
AT cristianedealmeidaleite acomparativestudyofclinicalvsdigitalexophthalmometrymeasurementmethods
AT eloisammsgebrim acomparativestudyofclinicalvsdigitalexophthalmometrymeasurementmethods
AT mariolrmonteiro acomparativestudyofclinicalvsdigitalexophthalmometrymeasurementmethods
AT allancpieronigoncalves acomparativestudyofclinicalvsdigitalexophthalmometrymeasurementmethods
AT thaısdesouspereira comparativestudyofclinicalvsdigitalexophthalmometrymeasurementmethods
AT cristinahiromikuniyoshi comparativestudyofclinicalvsdigitalexophthalmometrymeasurementmethods
AT cristianedealmeidaleite comparativestudyofclinicalvsdigitalexophthalmometrymeasurementmethods
AT eloisammsgebrim comparativestudyofclinicalvsdigitalexophthalmometrymeasurementmethods
AT mariolrmonteiro comparativestudyofclinicalvsdigitalexophthalmometrymeasurementmethods
AT allancpieronigoncalves comparativestudyofclinicalvsdigitalexophthalmometrymeasurementmethods
_version_ 1715334061439844352