The DOI matches its Crossref record; 35 of the 35 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Statistical guidelines for the analysis of data obtained from one or both eyes
Open accessAbstract
Purpose: Measurements obtained from the right and left eye of a subject are often correlated whereas many statistical tests assume observations in a sample are independent. Hence, data collected from both eyes cannot be combined without taking this correlation into account. Current practice is reviewed with reference to articles published in three optometry journals, viz., O phthalmic and P hysiological O ptics ( OPO ), O ptometry and V ision S cience ( OVS ), C linical and E xperimental O ptometry ( CEO ) during the period 2009–2012. Recent findings: Of the 230 articles reviewed, 148/230 (64%) obtained data from one eye and 82/230 (36%) from both eyes. Of the 148 one‐eye articles, the right eye, left eye, a randomly selected eye, the better eye, the worse or diseased eye, or the dominant eye were all used as selection criteria. Of the 82 two‐eye articles, the analysis utilized data from: (1) one eye only rejecting data from the adjacent eye, (2) both eyes separately, (3) both eyes taking into account the correlation between eyes, or (4) both eyes using one eye as a treated or diseased eye, the other acting as a control. In a proportion of studies, data were combined from both eyes without correction. Summary: It is suggested that: (1) investigators should consider whether it is advantageous to collect data from both eyes, (2) if one eye is studied and both are eligible, then it should be chosen at random, and (3) two‐eye data can be analysed incorporating eyes as a ‘within subjects’ factor.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
STATISTICAL METHODS FOR ASSESSING AGREEMENT BETWEEN TWO METHODS OF CLINICAL MEASUREMENT
Martin Bland, J., & Altman, D. (1986) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(86)90837-8 · Cited by 47,965
Statistical Methods for Rates and Proportions
Fleiss, J. L., Levin, B., & Paik, M. C. (2003) · Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics · doi:10.1002/0471445428 · Cited by 18,646
Forming inferences about some intraclass correlation coefficients.
McGraw, K. O., & Wong, S. P. (1996) · Psychological Methods · doi:10.1037/1082-989x.1.1.30 · Cited by 6,903
Cornell, J. A. (2012) · Technometrics · Cited by 743
A critical discussion of intraclass correlation coefficients
Müller, R., & Büttner, P. (1994) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.4780132310 · Cited by 714
Statistics Notes: Measurement error and correlation coefficients
Bland, J. M., & Altman, D. G. (1996) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.313.7048.41 · Cited by 639
The Wilcoxon signed rank test for paired comparisons of clustered data
Rosner, B., Glynn, R. J., & Lee, M. T. (2006) · Biometrics · doi:10.1111/j.1541-0420.2005.00389.x · Cited by 557
McAlinden, C., Khadka, J., & Pesudovs, K. (2011) · Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics · doi:10.1111/j.1475-1313.2011.00851.x · Cited by 436
People and eyes: statistical approaches in ophthalmology
MURDOCH, I. E., MORRIS, S. S., & COUSENS, S. N. (1998) · British Journal of Ophthalmology · doi:10.1136/bjo.82.8.971 · Cited by 322
Statistical Methods in Ophthalmology: An Adjustment for the Intraclass Correlation between Eyes
ROSNER, B. A. (1982) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/2530293 · Cited by 291
Metadata
- Authors
- Armstrong, R. A.
- Venue
- Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics
- Published
- 2012-12-17
- Volume
- 33
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 7-14
- ISSN
- 0275-5408 (ISSN-L)
- 1475-1313
- OpenAlex
- W2005859915
- Cited by
- 522
- References
- 35
- FWCI
- 12.88
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Statistical guidelines for the analysis of data obtained from one or both eyes. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/opo.12009
- The paper
- Armstrong, R. A. (2013). Statistical guidelines for the analysis of data obtained from one or both eyes. Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics. https://doi.org/10.1111/opo.12009
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.