Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21735421›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2011

Optical coherence tomography (OCT) for detection of macular oedema in patients with diabetic retinopathy.

Gianni Virgili, Francesca Menchini, Vittoria Murro, Emanuela Peluso, Francesca Rosa, Giovanni Casazza

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 42 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
42citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

42 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 76 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Markedly decreasing incidence of cause-specific blindness in Saxony (Eastern Germany).Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2021
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Observational
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Gianni VirgiliDepartment of Specialised Surgical Sciences, University of Florence, Via le Morgagni 85, Florence, Italy, 50134.
Francesca Menchini
Vittoria Murro
Emanuela Peluso
Francesca Rosa
Giovanni Casazza
Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Careggi · ITUniversity of Florence · ITUniversity of Milan · ITUniversity of Udine · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDiabetic macular oedema (DMO) is a thickening of the central retina, or the macula, and is associated with long-term visual loss in people with diabetic retinopathy (DR). Clinically significant macular oedema (CSMO) is the most severe form of DMO. Almost 30 years ago, the Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) found that CSMO, diagnosed by means of stereoscopic fundus photography, leads to moderate visual loss in one of four people within three years. It also showed that grid or focal laser photocoagulation to the macula halves this risk. Recently, intravitreal injection of antiangiogenic drugs has been investigated to try to improve vision in people with macular oedema due to DR.Optical coherence tomography (OCT) is based on optical reflectivity and is able to image retinal thickness and structure producing cross-sectional and three-dimensional images of the central retina. It is already widely used because it provides objective and quantitative assessment of macular oedema unlike the subjectivity of fundus biomicroscopic assessment, which is routinely used by ophthalmologists instead of photography. Optical coherence tomography is also used for quantitative follow up of the effects of treatment of CSMO. Disadvantages of using OCT are the cost to purchase it and the need for trained personnel to perform the examinations.

objectivesTo determine the diagnostic accuracy of OCT for detecting macular oedema in people with DR. A secondary objective is to compare the diagnostic accuracy by study-specific characteristics, such as factors related to methodology, patients or OCT. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR), the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE), the Health Technology Assessment Database (HTA) and the NHS Economic Evaluation Database (NHSEED) (The Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 5), MEDLINE (January 1950 to May 2011), EMBASE (January 1950 to May 2011), ISI Web of Science (January 1970 to May 2011), BIOSIS Previews (January 1969 to May 2011), MEDION and the Aggressive Research Intelligence Facility database (ARIF). There were no date or language restrictions in the electronic search for trials. The electronic databases were last searched on 16 May 2011. We checked bibliographies of relevant studies for additional references. SELECTION CRITERIA: We selected studies that assessed the diagnostic accuracy of any OCT model for detecting DMO or CSMO in patients with DR who were referred to eye clinics. Diabetic macular oedema and CSMO were diagnosed by means of fundus biomicroscopy by ophthalmologists or stereophotography by ophthalmologists or other trained personnel. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three authors independently extracted data on study characteristics and measures of accuracy. We assessed data using random-effects hierarchical sROC meta-analysis models. MAIN

resultsNine studies (768 participants, 1325 eyes) were included. Prevalence of CSMO was 19% to 65% (median 50%). Study quality was good for half the QUADAS items, whereas unclear or inadequate quality was found in some studies regarding selection criteria, index and reference test masking (blinding), availability of clinical information, uninterpretable results and withdrawals. There was a specific 'unit of analysis' issue because both eyes of the majority of participants were included in the analyses as if they were independent.Central CSMO was the target condition in all but one study and thus our results cannot be applied to non-central CSMO. In eight studies providing data on CSMO (697 participants, 1241 eyes), pooled sensitivity was 0.78 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.72 to 0.83) and specificity was 0.86 (95% CI 0.76 to 0.93). The median central retinal thickness cut-off we selected for data extraction was 250 µm (range 230 µm to 300 µm).Data from three studies reporting accuracy for detection of DMO (180 participants, 343 eyes) were not pooled. Sensitivities and specificities were about 0.80 in two studies and were both 1.00 in the third study. AUTHORS'

conclusionsCentral retinal thickness measured with OCT cannot be used as a stand-alone test to diagnose the central type of CSMO and decide on the use of laser photocoagulation in patients who are referred to retina clinics. In fact, there is a substantial disagreement of OCT with the ETDRS definition of CSMO based on clinical examination. Some researchers have observed that OCT can detect macular thickening earlier than clinical examination, but also found that such cases did not necessarily progress to CSMO and need photocoagulation.Care should be taken in applying the conclusions of this review to other test-treatment pathways. In fact, OCT will become an essential tool to manage antiangiogenic therapy, an expanding therapeutic option for patients with macular oedema due to DR, because OCT is a component of the diagnostic algorithms of studies on this new treatment.

Indexed as

Diabetic RetinopathyHumansMacular EdemaRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicRetinaTomography, Optical Coherence

Identifiers

PMID21735421
OpenAlexW4232541203

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.