Globe and Adnexal Trauma Terminology Survey

Annette K. Hoskin, Michael J. Fliotsos, Andrés Rousselot, Sean Ming Sheng Ng, Grant A. Justin, Richard Blanch, Marcus H. Colyer, Bhartendu Shukla, Sundaram Natarajan, Ferenc Kuhn, Gangadhara Sundar, Fasika A. Woreta, Stephanie L. Watson, Rupesh Agrawal*

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

4 Scopus citations


Importance: Ocular trauma terminology should be periodically updated to enable comprehensive capturing and monitoring of ocular trauma in clinical and research settings. Objective: To update terminology for globe and adnexal trauma. Design, Setting, and Participants: A 2-round modified Delphi survey was conducted from January 1 to July 31, 2021, using an expert panel, including 69 ophthalmologists identified through their membership in ophthalmology (globe and adnexal trauma) societies. Consensus was defined as at least 67% expert agreement. A steering committee developed questions after identifying gaps in the current terminology via a targeted literature review. Round 1 sought consensus on existing and newly proposed terminology, and round 2 focused on unresolved questions from round 1. Experts included ophthalmologists who had managed, on average, 52 globe or adnexal trauma cases throughout their careers and/or published a total of 5 or more globe or adnexal trauma-related peer-reviewed articles. Main Outcomes and Measures: Expert consensus on ocular and adnexal terms. Results: A total of 69 experts participated in and completed round 1 of the survey. All 69 participants who completed round 1 were asked to complete round 2, and 58 responses were received. Consensus was reached for 18 of 25 questions (72%) in round 1 and 4 of 7 questions (57%) in round 2. Existing Birmingham Eye Trauma Terminology system terminology achieved consensus of 84% (58 of 69 experts) in round 1 and 97% (56 of 58 experts) in round 2. Experts agreed on the need for further refinement of the definition of zones of injury (55 of 69 [80%]), as the zone affected can have a substantial effect on visual and functional outcomes. There was consensus that the mechanism of injury (52 of 69 [75%]) and status of the lacrimal canaliculi (54 of 69 [78%]), nasolacrimal ducts (48 of 69 [69%]), lens (46 of 58 [80%]), retina (42 of 58 [73%]), and central and paracentral cornea (47 of 58 [81%]) be included in the revised terminology. Conclusions and Relevance: There was consensus (defined as at least 67% expert agreement) on continued use of the existing Birmingham Eye Trauma Terminology system definitions and that additional terms are required to update the current ocular trauma terminology..

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)819-826
Number of pages8
JournalJAMA Ophthalmology
Issue number8
StatePublished - Aug 2022
Externally publishedYes


Dive into the research topics of 'Globe and Adnexal Trauma Terminology Survey'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this