Trial reportCanadian journal of ophthalmology. Journal canadien d'ophtalmologie2013
Fundus image diagnostic agreement in uveitis utilizing free and open source software.
Trial report in Canadian journal of ophthalmology. Journal canadien d'ophtalmologie, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Ophthalmology practice during the COVID-19 pandemic.BMJ open ophthalmology · 2020Article
- Retinal imaging in uveitis.Saudi journal of ophthalmology : official journal of the Saudi Ophthalmological Society · 2014Article
- Web based tools for visualizing imaging data and development of XNATView, a zero footprint image viewer.Frontiers in neuroinformatics · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo assess the adequacy of image agreement regarding uveitis based on color fundus and fluorescein angiography images alone, and to use free and open source applications to conduct an image agreement study.
designCross-sectional agreement study.
participantsBaseline fundus and fluorescein images of patients with panuveitis, posterior, or intermediate uveitis enrolled in the Multi-center Uveitis Steroid Treatment (MUST) trial.
methodsThree fellowship-trained specialists in uveitis independently reviewed patient images using ClearCanvas™ and responded using Epi Info™. The diagnoses of the 3 reviewers were compared with the MUST clinician as a gold standard. A rank transformation adjusted for the possible variation in number of responses per patient. Chance-corrected interobserver agreement among the 3 reviewers was estimated with the ι coefficient. Confidence interval (CI) and SE were bootstrapped.
resultsAgreement between the diagnoses of the respondents and the baseline MUST clinician's diagnosis was poor across all diagnostic categories, ι = 0.09 (95% CI, 0.07-0.11). The agreement among respondents alone also was poor, ι = 0.11 ± 0.02 (95% CI, 0.08-0.13). The specialists requested more patient historical and clinical information to make a diagnosis on all patients.
conclusionsThe role in distinguishing the multiple conditions in uveitis appears to be limited when based on fundus imaging alone. Future studies should investigate different categories of clinical data to supplement image data. Freely available applications have excellent utility in ophthalmic imaging agreement studies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.