The images were graded for the presence of macular edema (ME), pigment epithelial detachment (PED), subretinal fluid (SRF), and hyperreflective signals.
Clinical papers (observational studies and trials involving direct interaction between an investigator and human subjects) were graded for level of evidence by two independent reviewers.
If these collective participants (n =76) were graded for their efforts, they would 'earn' a low C based on their 72.9% rate of understanding across the five categories of biological evolution statements coupled with a 23.0% misconception rate.
Specifically, the following symptoms and physical exam findings were graded for the above scores as follows: the presence of dyspnea and PND was graded as present (1) or absent (0).
SD-OCT images taken on the days marked with downward arrows were graded for ME, PED, SRF, and HS in retinal layers with positive finding being indicated by a black box.
Results were graded for quality of evidence (I-III) and strength of recommendations (A-E) on the basis of criteria adopted by the United States Preventive Services Task Force.
Tissue sections were graded for pathology.
All adverse events were graded for severity and relationship to study product.
Multiple compartments (or levels in the case of lumbar spine) were graded for these features.
RPE and choriocapillaris ultrastructural changes, and BrM basal deposits including location, thickness, continuity, and content were graded for severity.
To estimate the extent of rejection, myocardial biopsy samples were graded for lymphocytic infiltration and necrotic changes as described [9].
