Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributorSistema FMUSP-HC: Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo (FMUSP) e Hospital das Clínicas da FMUSP
dc.contributor.authorPEREIRA, Thais de Sous
dc.contributor.authorKUNIYOSHI, Cristina Hiromi
dc.contributor.authorLEITE, Cristiane de Almeida
dc.contributor.authorGEBRIM, Eloisa M. M. S.
dc.contributor.authorMONTEIRO, Mario L. R.
dc.contributor.authorGONCALVES, Allan C. Pieroni
dc.identifier.citationJOURNAL OF OPHTHALMOLOGY, v.2020, article ID 1397410, 6p, 2020
dc.description.abstractBackground. 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.eng
dc.description.sponsorshipCAPES-Coordenacao de Aperfeicoamento de Nivel Superior, Brasilia, Brazil
dc.description.sponsorshipCNPq-Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cientifico e TecnologicoNational Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq) [308172/2018-3]
dc.publisherHINDAWI LTDeng
dc.relation.ispartofJournal of Ophthalmology
dc.subject.otherhertel exophthalmometryeng
dc.subject.otherposition measurementeng
dc.titleA Comparative Study of Clinical vs. Digital Exophthalmometry Measurement Methodseng
dc.rights.holderCopyright HINDAWI LTDeng
dc.subject.wosMedicine, Research & Experimentaleng
dc.type.categoryoriginal articleeng
hcfmusp.relation.referenceBingham CM, 2016, OPHTHAL PLAST RECONS, V32, P106, DOI 10.1097/IOP.0000000000000437eng
hcfmusp.relation.referenceBLAND JM, 1986, LANCET, V1, P307, DOI 10.1016/s0140-6736(86)90837-8eng
hcfmusp.relation.referenceEdwards DT, 2004, OPHTHALMOLOGY, V111, P1029, DOI 10.1016/j.ophtha.2003.08.027eng
hcfmusp.relation.referenceFRUEH BR, 1985, ARCH OPHTHALMOL-CHIC, V103, P1355eng
hcfmusp.relation.referenceGIBSON R D, 1984, Australasian Radiology, V28, P9, DOI 10.1111/j.1440-1673.1984.tb02462.xeng
hcfmusp.relation.referenceHAUCK M, 2010, [No title captured], V1, P4eng
hcfmusp.relation.referenceKashkouli Mohsen Bahmani, 2003, Orbit, V22, P239, DOI 10.1076/orbi.
hcfmusp.relation.referenceKim IT, 2001, OPHTHALMOLOGICA, V215, P156, DOI 10.1159/000050850eng
hcfmusp.relation.referenceKnudtzon K, 1949, ACTA PSYCH NEUROL, V24, P523, DOI 10.1111/j.1600-0447.1949.tb07336.xeng
hcfmusp.relation.referenceLam AKC, 2009, OPHTHAL PHYSL OPT, V29, P472, DOI 10.1111/j.1475-1313.2008.00617.xeng
hcfmusp.relation.referenceMilbratz GH, 2012, OPHTHALMOLOGY, V119, P625, DOI 10.1016/j.ophtha.2011.08.039eng
hcfmusp.relation.referenceMiot HA, 2009, CLINICS, V64, P885, DOI 10.1590/S1807-59322009000900009eng
hcfmusp.relation.referenceMUSCH DC, 1985, OPHTHALMOLOGY, V92, P1177eng
hcfmusp.relation.referenceR Core Team, 2017, R LANG ENV STAT COMPeng
hcfmusp.relation.referenceRamli N, 2015, ORBIT, V34, P257, DOI 10.3109/01676830.2015.1057291eng
hcfmusp.relation.referenceSegni M, 2002, AM J OPHTHALMOL, V133, P813, DOI 10.1016/S0002-9394(02)01429-0eng
hcfmusp.relation.referenceVardizer Y, 2005, OPHTHAL PLAST RECONS, V21, P427, DOI 10.1097/01.iop.0000180066.87572.39eng
Appears in Collections:

Artigos e Materiais de Revistas Científicas - FM/MOF
Departamento de Otorrinolaringologia e Oftalmologia - FM/MOF

Artigos e Materiais de Revistas Científicas - HC/ICHC
Instituto Central - HC/ICHC

Artigos e Materiais de Revistas Científicas - HC/InRad
Instituto de Radiologia - HC/InRad

Artigos e Materiais de Revistas Científicas - HU
Hospital Universitário - HU

Artigos e Materiais de Revistas Científicas - LIM/33
LIM/33 - Laboratório de Oftalmologia

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
art_PEREIRA_A_Comparative_Study_of_Clinical_vs_Digital_Exophthalmometry_2020.PDFpublishedVersion (English)1.93 MBAdobe PDFThumbnail

Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.