Optimising subjective anterior eye grading precision.

PURPOSE: To establish the optimum grading increment which ensured parity between practitioners while maximising clinical precision. METHODS: Second year optometry students (n = 127, 19.5 ± 1.4 years, 55 % female) and qualified eye care practitioners (n = 61, 40.2 ± 14.8 years, 52 % female) had 30 s to grade each of bulbar, limbal and palpebral hyperaemia of the upper lid of 4 patients imaged live with a digital slit lamp under 16× magnification, diffuse illumination, with the image projected on a screen. The patients were presented in a randomised sequence 3 times in succession, during which the graders used the Efron printed grading scale once to the nearest 0.1 increment, once to nearest 0.5 increment and once to the nearest integer grade in a randomised order. Graders were masked to their previous responses. RESULTS: For most grading conditions less than 20 % of clinicians showed a ≤0.1 difference in grade from the mean. In contrast, more than 50 % of the student graders and 40 % of experienced graders showed a difference in grade from the mean within 0.5 for all conditions under measurement. Student precision in grading was better with both 0.1 and 0.5 grading increments than grading to the nearest unit, except for limbal hyperaemia where they performed more accurately with 0.5 unit increment grading. Limbal grading precision was not affected by grading step increment for experienced practitioners, but 0.1 and 0.5 grading increments were both better than the 1.0 grading increment for bulbar hyperaemia and the 0.1 grading increment was better than the 0.5 grading increment and both were better than the 1.0 grading increment for palpebral hyperaemia. CONCLUSION: Although narrower interval scales maximise the ability to detect smaller clinical changes, the grading increment should not exceed one standard deviation of the discrepancy between measurements. Therefore, 0.5 grading increments are recommended for subjective anterior eye physiology grading (limbal, bulbar and palpebral redness).

Fast versus gradual adaptation of soft daily disposable contact lenses in neophyte wearers.

PURPOSE: Despite the widespread practice of gradually adapting all new soft contact lens wearers (neophytes), there is little evidence-based research underpinning such practice. This work determined if a gradual adaptation period is necessary for neophytes when fitted with modern hydrogel or silicone-hydrogel daily disposable contact lenses. METHOD: At four sites, neophytes (19-32 years) were randomly assigned to an adaptation schedule: fast (10 h wear from the first day) or gradual (4 h on the first day, increasing their wear-time by 2 h on each subsequent day until they had reached 10 h) with hydrogel (n = 24 fast; n = 21 gradual) or silicone-hydrogel (n = 10 fast; n = 10 gradual) contact lenses. Masked investigators graded ocular surface physiology and non-invasive tear breakup time (NIBUT). A range of subjective scores (using 0-100 visual analogue scales) were recorded at the initial visit and after 10 h of lens wear, 4-6 days and 12-14 days after initial fitting. Subjective scores were also repeated after 7 days. RESULTS: There was no difference (p > 0.05) in ocular surface physiology between the fast and gradual adaptation groups at any time point in either lens type. NIBUT was similar at all time points for both adaptation groups in both lens types with the exception that the gradual adaptation silicone-hydrogel wearers had a slightly longer NIBUT (p = 0.007) than the fast adaptation group at 12-14 days. Subjective scores were also similar across the visits and lens types with the exception of 'lens awareness' and 'ease of lens removal' which were better (p < 0.05) in the fast compared with the gradual adaptation hydrogel lens group at day 7. Additionally, 'end-of-day discomfort' was better (p = 0.02) in the fast compared with the gradual adaptation hydrogel lens group at 12-14 days. CONCLUSION: There appears to be no benefit in daily disposable soft contact lens adaptation for neophytes with modern contact lens materials.