↓ Skip to main content

Consensus on Diagnostic Criteria of Idiopathic Orbital Inflammation Using a Modified Delphi Approach

Overview of attention for article published in JAMA Ophthalmology, July 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (84th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (51st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
18 X users
facebook
4 Facebook pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
94 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
115 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Consensus on Diagnostic Criteria of Idiopathic Orbital Inflammation Using a Modified Delphi Approach
Published in
JAMA Ophthalmology, July 2017
DOI 10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2017.1581
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ilse Mombaerts, Jurij R. Bilyk, Geoffrey E. Rose, Alan A. McNab, Aaron Fay, Peter J. Dolman, Richard C. Allen, Martin H. Devoto, Gerald J. Harris

Abstract

Current practice to diagnose idiopathic orbital inflammation (IOI) is inconsistent, leading to frequent misdiagnosis of other orbital entities, including cancer. By specifying criteria, diagnosis of orbital inflammation will be improved. To define a set of criteria specific for the diagnosis of IOI. A 3-round modified Delphi process with an expert panel was conducted from June 8, 2015, to January 25, 2016. Fifty-three orbital scientist experts, identified through membership in the Orbital Society, were invited to participate in on online survey and they scored, using 5-point Likert scales, items that are eligible as diagnostic criteria from the literature and from personal experience. The items were clustered around the anatomic subtypes of IOI: idiopathic dacryoadenitis and idiopathic orbital fat inflammation (2 nonmyositic IOIs), and idiopathic orbital myositis (myositic IOI). Items with dissensus were rescored in the second round, and all items with consensus (median, ≥4; interquartile range, ≤1) were ranked by importance in the third round. Consensus on items to be included in the criteria. Of the 53 experts invited to participate, a multinational panel of 35 (66%) individuals with a mean (SD) years of experience of 31 (11) years were included. Consensus was achieved on 7 of 14 clinical and radiologic items and 5 of 7 pathologic items related to diagnosis of nonmyositic IOI, and 11 of 14 clinical and radiologic items and 1 of 5 pathologic items for myositic IOI. There was agreement among panelists to focus on surgical tissue biopsy results in the diagnosis of nonmyositic IOI and on a trial with systemic corticosteroids in myositic IOI. Panelists agreed that a maximum number of 30 IgG4-positive plasma cells per high-power field in the orbital tissue is compatible with the diagnosis of IOI. An international panel of experts endorsed consensus diagnostic criteria of IOI. These criteria define a level of exclusion suggested for diagnosis and include tissue biopsy for lesions not confined to the extraocular muscles. This consensus is a step toward developing guidelines for the management of IOI, which needs to be followed by validation studies of the criteria.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 18 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 115 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 115 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 14 12%
Student > Postgraduate 11 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 9%
Other 9 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 8%
Other 30 26%
Unknown 32 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 63 55%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 3%
Engineering 2 2%
Social Sciences 2 2%
Psychology 1 <1%
Other 3 3%
Unknown 41 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 27 February 2020.
All research outputs
#2,828,883
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from JAMA Ophthalmology
#1,326
of 6,643 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#51,068
of 326,855 outputs
Outputs of similar age from JAMA Ophthalmology
#48
of 98 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,643 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 326,855 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 98 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its contemporaries.