4.4 Article

INTRAOCULAR EMULSION OF SILICONE OIL (ITEMS) GRADING SYSTEM An Evidence-Based Expert-Led Consensus

期刊

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/IAE.0000000000003811

关键词

grading; silicone oil; silicone oil emulsion; silicone oil microbubbles; silicone oil-associated hyperreflective dots

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The purpose of this study is to propose a grading system for the assessment of silicone oil (SiO) emulsion, applicable in a routine clinical setting and validated through an expert-led consensus procedure. Based on literature review and questionnaire survey, a final grading system was developed, allowing for the homogenous collection of data on SiO emulsion.
Purpose:To propose the InTraocular EMulsion of Silicone oil (ITEMS) grading system for the assessment of silicone oil (SiO) emulsion, applicable in a routine clinical setting and validated through an expert-led consensus procedure.Methods:Seven experts on intraocular liquid tamponades, led by a facilitator, performed a literature review on the detection of SiO emulsion. Based on the proposed ideas, a questionnaire was developed and submitted to the experts on the methods to detect SiO emulsion and the items to grade. After 2 rounds of individual ranking using a 9-point scale and related discussion, the final grading system was developed including items that reached consensus (score & GE;7 from & GE;75% of members).Results:The agreed ITEMS grading system includes the identification of SiO microbubbles and large SiO bubbles through slit-lamp biomicroscopy, gonioscopy, fundus examination under mydriasis, or ultra-wide-field fundus photography. Moreover, macular and disk optical coherence tomography are used to detect SiO-associated hyperreflective dots.Conclusion:An evidence-based expert-led consensus was conducted to develop grading system of SiO emulsion, allowing, for the first time, homogenous collection of data on SiO emulsion. This has the potential to improve the understanding of the role and clinical relevance of SiO emulsion, allowing comparisons between different studies.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据