Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-rdgjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-07T01:57:27.547Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Assessment of tympanic membrane perforation size using ImageJ software by ENT clinicians of different grades

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 October 2023

Bhargavi Chandrasekar
Affiliation:
ENT Department, Alder Hey Children's NHS Foundation Trust, Eaton Road, Liverpool, UK
Kristijonas Milinis
Affiliation:
ENT Department, Alder Hey Children's NHS Foundation Trust, Eaton Road, Liverpool, UK
Natalie Lowe
Affiliation:
ENT Department, Alder Hey Children's NHS Foundation Trust, Eaton Road, Liverpool, UK
Sujata De
Affiliation:
ENT Department, Alder Hey Children's NHS Foundation Trust, Eaton Road, Liverpool, UK
Sunil D Sharma*
Affiliation:
ENT Department, Alder Hey Children's NHS Foundation Trust, Eaton Road, Liverpool, UK
*
Corresponding author: Sunil D Sharma; Email: sunilsharma@doctors.org.uk
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective

To compare visual estimation versus ImageJ calculation of tympanic membrane perforation size in the paediatric population between clinicians of different experience.

Methods

Five images of tympanic membrane perforations in children, captured using an otoendoscope, were selected. The gold standard was the ImageJ results by one consultant otologist. Consultants, registrars and Senior House Officers or equivalent were asked to visually estimate and calculate the perforation size using ImageJ software.

Results

The mean difference in variation from gold standard between visual estimation and ImageJ calculation was 12.16 per cent, 95 per cent CI (10.55, 13.78) p < 0.05, with ImageJ providing a more accurate estimation of perforation. Registrars were significantly more accurate at visual estimation than senior house officers. There was no statistically significant difference in ImageJ results between the different grades.

Conclusion

Using ImageJ software is more accurate at estimating tympanic membrane perforation size than visual assessment for all ENT clinicians regardless of experience.

Information

Type
Main Article
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of J.L.O. (1984) LIMITED
Figure 0

Figure 1. Variation from gold standard for visual estimation and for ImageJ calculation. The dark horizontal line in the box plots represents the means and the upper and lower boundaries shown by the vertical lines on either side of each box plot represent the confidence intervals. Please ignore the circles above the ImageJ box plot.

Figure 1

Figure 2. Assessment of perforation size area in pixels as generated on ImageJ. The yellow outline represents the assessment of the perforation edges on ImageJ.

Figure 2

Table 1. Difference between visual estimation and gold standard

Figure 3

Table 2. Difference between ImageJ and gold standard