Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24788016›Full record

SynthesisEye (London, England)2014

Diagnostic accuracy of the Amsler grid and the preferential hyperacuity perimetry in the screening of patients with age-related macular degeneration: systematic review and meta-analysis.

L Faes, N S Bodmer, L M Bachmann, M A Thiel, M K Schmid

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Eye (London, England), 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 45 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
45citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

45 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Metamorphopsia after surgery for rhegmatogenous retinal detachment.International journal of ophthalmology · 2025
    Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Real-Life Value of the OdysightJournal of clinical medicine · 2022
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Observational
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

L FaesMedignition Inc, Research Consultants, Zug, Switzerland.
N S BodmerMedignition Inc, Research Consultants, Zug, Switzerland.
L M BachmannMedignition Inc, Research Consultants, Zug, Switzerland.
M A ThielEye Clinic, Cantonal Hospital of Lucerne, Lucerne, Switzerland.
M K SchmidEye Clinic, Cantonal Hospital of Lucerne, Lucerne, Switzerland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo clarify the screening potential of the Amsler grid and preferential hyperacuity perimetry (PHP) in detecting or ruling out wet age-related macular degeneration (AMD). EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: Medline, Scopus and Web of Science (by citation of reference) were searched. Checking of reference lists of review articles and of included articles complemented electronic searches. Papers were selected, assessed, and extracted in duplicate. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Twelve included studies enrolled 903 patients and allowed constructing 27 two-by-two tables. Twelve tables reported on the Amsler grid and its modifications, twelve tables reported on the PHP, one table assessed the MCPT and two tables assessed the M-charts. All but two studies had a case-control design. The pooled sensitivity of studies assessing the Amsler grid was 0.78 (95% confidence intervals; 0.64-0.87), and the pooled specificity was 0.97 (95% confidence intervals; 0.91-0.99). The corresponding positive and negative likelihood ratios were 23.1 (95% confidence intervals; 8.4-64.0) and 0.23 (95% confidence intervals; 0.14-0.39), respectively. The pooled sensitivity of studies assessing the PHP was 0.85 (95% confidence intervals; 0.80-0.89), and specificity was 0.87 (95% confidence intervals; 0.82-0.91). The corresponding positive and negative likelihood ratios were 6.7 (95% confidence intervals; 4.6-9.8) and 0.17 (95% confidence intervals; 0.13-0.23). No pooling was possible for MCPT and M-charts.

conclusionResults from small preliminary studies show promising test performance characteristics both for the Amsler grid and PHP to rule out wet AMD in the screening setting. To what extent these findings can be transferred to a real clinic practice still needs to be established.

Indexed as

False Positive ReactionsHumansPredictive Value of TestsReproducibility of ResultsVision ScreeningVisual AcuityVisual Field TestsWet Macular Degeneration

Identifiers

PMID24788016
PMCPMC4094801

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.