The DOI matches its Crossref record.
People and eyes: statistical approaches in ophthalmology
Open accessAbstract
In conclusion, when an observation by its nature involves two eyes, as for blindness, statistical analyses should be conducted on individuals rather than eyes and between eye correlation is not a problem. In other circumstances, if information on only one eye per individual is used in the analysis there is a potential "waste" of information leading to less precise estimates of effect and less power. In addition, bias may be introduced into a study if there is non-random selection of the eye for inclusion in the analysis. The use of an overall summary of ocular findings for an individual may result in "wastage" of information in a similar fashion to the use of only one eye per individual. On the other hand, an analysis of individual eyes with no allowance made for between eye correlation may result in falsely narrow confidence intervals around estimates of effect. Between eyes correlation may be assessed empirically using the kappa statistic or similar means. If between eye correlation is substantial, statistical techniques exist which can utilise all available data while allowing for the correlation. In some circumstances a powerful design may be to use the fellow eye as a "control". Two conclusions may be drawn from this review of analytical approaches to the analysis of clinical data in the BJO. Firstly, the analytical approaches employed in many studies fail to use all the data available. In other words the analysis is less than "optimal". Secondly, in a proportion of studies, inappropriate statistical methods are used which may lead the investigator to draw inappropriate conclusions. In other words, the analysis is invalid. Ophthalmic data, by their very nature, present particular statistical challenges. We emphasise the need to involve appropriate statistical expertise in the design and analysis of ophthalmic studies.
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
Cited by
Meta-analyses involving cross-over trials: methodological issues
Elbourne, D. R., Altman, D. G., Higgins, J. P., Curtin, F., Worthington, H. V., & Vail, A. (2002) · International Journal of Epidemiology · doi:10.1093/ije/31.1.140 · Cited by 2,305
Statistical guidelines for the analysis of data obtained from one or both eyes
Armstrong, R. A. (2013) · Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics · doi:10.1111/opo.12009 · Cited by 522
Surveillance for ocular hypertension: an evidence synthesis and economic evaluation.
Burr, J., Botello-Pinzon, P., Takwoingi, Y., Hernández, R., Vazquez-Montes, M., Elders, A., Asaoka, R., Banister, K., van der Schoot, J., Fraser, C., et al. (2012) · Health Technology Assessment · doi:10.3310/hta16290 · Cited by 180
Fraccaro, P., Nicolo, M., Bonetto, M., Giacomini, M., Weller, P., Traverso, C. E., Prosperi, M., & OSullivan, D. (2015) · BMC Ophthalmology · doi:10.1186/1471-2415-15-10 · Cited by 48
Metadata
- Authors
- MURDOCH, I. E., MORRIS, S. S., & COUSENS, S. N.
- Venue
- British Journal of Ophthalmology
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 1998-08-01
- Volume
- 82
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 971-973
- ISSN
- 0007-1161 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2057038561
- Cited by
- 322
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 2.19
- 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: People and eyes: statistical approaches in ophthalmology. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/bjo.82.8.971
- The paper
- MURDOCH, I. E., MORRIS, S. S., & COUSENS, S. N. (1998). People and eyes: statistical approaches in ophthalmology. British Journal of Ophthalmology. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjo.82.8.971
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.