Background/aims To propose and validate a new pterygium grading system based on slit-lamp evaluation.
Methods This prospective cross-sectional study included 217 patients with pterygium. All patients underwent slit-lamp examination, and slit-lamp photographs were independently graded by two graders twice. A total of eight parameters were evaluated and all parameters were assigned with a score of 1–4 (normal–severe). Intra-rater and inter-rater reliability as determined by weighted Cohen’s kappa analysis.
Results A total of 868 independent assessment, based on 217 slit-lamp images, were performed by two graders. For conjunctival assessment, the intra-rater reliability was excellent for body thickness (κ=0.81–0.89) and size at limbus (κ=0.87–0.92), substantial-to-excellent for body vascularity (κ=0.72–0.86), and moderate-to-excellent for body length (κ=0.57–0.81), whereas the inter-rater reliability was excellent for size at limbus (κ=0.86), substantial for body thickness (κ=0.72–0.73) and body vascularity (κ=0.66–0.75), and moderate for body length (κ=0.54–0.57). For corneal assessment, the intra-rater reliability was excellent for all four parameters (κ=0.84–0.90) whereas the inter-rater reliability was excellent for head length (κ=0.86–0.87), substantial-to-excellent for head vascularity (κ=0.78–0.82), substantial for Stocker’s line (κ=0.79–0.80) and head thickness (κ=0.67–0.69). The grading system was named SLIT2, which included S tocker’s line, S ize at limbus, L ength of head/body, I njection/vascularity of body/head, and T hickness of body/head.
Conclusion The proposed SLIT2 grading system, consisting of eight components, may serve as a reliable tool to standardise the reporting of pterygium severity and disease recurrence for clinical and research applications.
- Ocular surface
Statistics from Altmetric.com
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Contributors Design and conceptualisation of study: YCL and JM. Data collection: DSJT, YCL, MP, AJSJ, XLF, YCT and YFL. Data analysis and interpretation: DSJT, YCL, HMH and JM. Manuscript drafting: DSJT. Critical appraisal and final approval of manuscript: DSJT, YCL, MP, AJSJ, XLF, YCT, YFL, HMH and JM.
Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Competing interests None declared.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Data sharing statement All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as supplementary information.