These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: LOCS III versus the Oxford Clinical Cataract Classification and Grading System for the assessment of nuclear, cortical and posterior subcapsular cataract.
    Author: Hall AB, Thompson JR, Deane JS, Rosenthal AR.
    Journal: Ophthalmic Epidemiol; 1997 Dec; 4(4):179-94. PubMed ID: 9500153.
    Abstract:
    PURPOSE: To compare two methods of cataract grading for nuclear cataract, cortical cataract and posterior subcapsular cataract. METHODS: The Melton Eye Study is an English community-based epidemiological study of the natural history of eye disease in people aged 55 to 74 years. The lenses of both eyes of 560 subjects were graded at the slit lamp using two cataract grading systems. The Oxford Clinical Cataract Classification and Grading System (OCCCGS) employs standard diagrams and Munsell colour samples for the grading of cortical, posterior subcapsular and nuclear cataract. The Lens Opacities Classification System III (LOCS III) uses photographic transparencies of the lens as standards. In both systems a decimalised score is assigned. We also graded the LOCS III standard images using the OCCCGS. Interobserver variation was calculated for both grading systems. Linear calibration lines are plotted for each type of lens opacity. RESULTS: The relationship between LOCS III and OCCCGS for nuclear cataract and posterior subcapsular cataract is linear. The relationship for cortical cataract is linear once the LOCS III scores are squared. The intervals between the LOCS III images when ranked by the human eye using the OCCCGS are linear. Interobserver variation for both systems is good. CONCLUSIONS: The linear calibration lines may be used to convert from one system to another and will be useful in comparing studies or performing meta-analysis. These results show that data from cataract studies using different clinical grading schemes can be compared.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]