REFERENCES
- O’Donnell C, Wolffsohn JS. Grading of corneal transparency. CLAE. 2004;27:161–170.
- Papas EB. Key factors in the subjective and objective assessment of conjunctival erythema. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2000;41:687–691.
- Wolffsohn JS, Purslow C. Clinical monitoring of ocular physiology using digital analysis. CLAE. 2003;26:27–35.
- Schulze MM, Hutchings N, Simpson TL. The use of fractal analysis and photometry to estimate the accuracy of bulbar redness grading scales. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2008;49:1398–1406.
- Millán MS, Pérez-Cabré E, Abril HC, et al. Evaluación objetiva de la hiperemia de la conjuntiva tarsal superior mediante análisis de imagen. Ensayo preliminar. Rev Esp Contact. 2005;12:9–15.
- Sorbara L, Simpson T, Duench S, et al. Comparison of an objective method of measuring bulbar redness to the use of traditional grading scales. CLAE. 2007;30:53–59.
- Institute for Eye Research. Appendix B. In: Phillips AJ, Speedwell L (Eds.). Contact Lenses, 5th ed. Edinburgh, UK: Butterworth-Heinemann, 2007; pp. 627–631.
- Efron N. Clinical application of grading scales for contact lens complications. Optician. 1997;213:26–35.
- Pérez-Cabré E, Millán MS, Abril HC, et al. Image analysis of contact lens grading scales for objective grade assignment of ocular complications. Proc of SPIE. 2005;5287:418–427.
- Efron N, Morgan PB, Jagpal R. The combined influence of knowledge, training and experience when grading contact lens complications. Ophthal Physiol Opt. 2003;23:79–85.
- Efron N, Morgan PB, Farmer C, et al. Experience and training as determinants of grading reliability when assessing the severity of contact lens complications. Ophthal Physiol Opt. 2003;23:119–124.
- Bailey IL, Bullimore MA, Raasch TW, et al. Clinical grading and the effects of scaling. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1991;32:422–432.
- Efron N, Morgan PG, Katsara SS. Validation of grading scales for contact lens complications. Ophthal Physiol Opt. 2001;21:17–29.
- Welkowitz J, Ewen RB, Cohen J. Introductory Statistics for Behavioral Sciences, 3rd ed. New York, NY: Academic Press, 1982; p. 251.
- ISO, 5725-1. Accuracy (trueness and precision) of measurement methods and results—Part 1: General principles and definitions. Geneva, Switzerland: International Organization for Standardization, 1994.
- Scott J, Huskisson EC. Graphic representation of pain. Pain. 1976;2:75–84.
- Efron N, McCubbin S. Grading contact lens complications under time constraints. Optom Vis Sci. 2007;84:1082–1086.