ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: To present a survey of the features of published slit lamp-based scoring systems and their applicability in the context of modern ocular toxicology and drug development. METHODS: References describing original or modified slit lamp-based scoring systems for human or veterinary clinical patients or in investigative or toxicologic research were collected following a comprehensive literature review using textbooks and online publication searches. Each system's indications and features were compiled to facilitate comparison. RESULTS: Literature review identified 138 original or modified scoring systems. Most (48%) were published for evaluation of the ocular surface, 34% for the general anterior segment, and 18% for the lens. Most systems were described for assessment of human patients (50%) and small albino laboratory species such as rabbits (19%), rats (12%), and mice (8%). Systems described for pigmented laboratory species and for larger species such as dogs, cats, pigs, and nonhuman primates (NHPs) were comparatively underrepresented. No systems described a lens scoring scheme specific to the dog, cat, pig, or NHP. Scoring schemes for aqueous and vitreous cells were infrequently described for laboratory species. CONCLUSIONS: Many slit lamp-based scoring systems have been published, but the features of each differ and complicate translation of findings between different species. Use and interpretation of any scoring system in toxicology and drug development must be done with awareness of the limitations of the system being used.
Subject(s)
Anterior Eye Segment/pathology , Drug Evaluation, Preclinical , Slit Lamp/classification , Toxicology , Animals , Drug Design , Humans , Ophthalmic Solutions , Pharmaceutical PreparationsABSTRACT
PURPOSE: To compare live and photographic (still) grades of corneal staining of the same eyes and the repeatability of grading between two investigators. METHODS: Thirty patients were recruited to participate in a contact lens study, and their level of corneal staining was graded by two investigators in situ (live images), using slit lamp biomicroscopy. Digital still images of the corneal staining were also captured during the study visits. An independent observer selected 105 of the still images graded by investigator 1 and another 105 images graded by investigator 2 and presented them to the original investigator in a random order, on three separate occasions. Grading was performed at the time of the live grading and the three still image sessions, using the Centre for Contact Lens Research corneal staining scale that combines grades of both extent and type to provide an overall "global staining score" from 0 to 10,000 for corneal staining. A comparison was made between live and still grades as well as the intrainvestigator repeatability for the multiple grading of the still images. RESULTS: The mean (±SD) of corneal staining grades recorded for the same eyes examined live and then later on three occasions was 1795 (±1083) and 714 (±974), respectively, for participants examined by investigator 1 (p < 0.001) and 1854 (±1075) and 461 (±411) for those examined by investigator 2 (p < 0.001). There was a significant difference over the three repeated still grading sessions for each investigator (p < 0.001), although there was a high degree of consistency among the three still grading sessions for each of the investigators: the intraclass correlation for investigator 1 was 0.91 (confidence interval, 0.87 to 0.93) and that for investigator 2 was 0.82 (confidence interval, 0.77 to 0.87). DISCUSSION: Digital still image grading of corneal staining significantly underrepresented the amount of corneal staining observed through a slit lamp. Clinical investigators graded corneal staining with a high degree of consistency.
