Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25412344›Full record

ArticleJAMA ophthalmology2015

Telemedicine screening for cytomegalovirus retinitis at the point of care for human immunodeficiency virus infection.

Choeng Jirawison, Michael Yen, Prattana Leenasirimakul, Jenny Chen, Siripim Guadanant, Paradee Kunavisarut, Direk Patikulsila, Nawat Watanachai, Somsanguan Ausayakhun, David Heiden and 3 more

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA ophthalmology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 17% of its field
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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 30 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Telemedicine in Pediatric Infectious Diseases.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Clinical Features of Cytomegalovirus Retinitis in HIV Infected Patients.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2020
    Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Retinal Telemedicine.Current ophthalmology reports · 2018
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. 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

13 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.

Choeng JirawisonDepartment of Ophthalmology, Nakornping Hospital, Chiang Mai, Thailand.
Michael YenFrancis I. Proctor Foundation for Research in Ophthalmology, University of California, San Francisco3currently a medical student, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York.
Prattana LeenasirimakulDepartment of Ophthalmology, Nakornping Hospital, Chiang Mai, Thailand.
Jenny ChenFrancis I. Proctor Foundation for Research in Ophthalmology, University of California, San Francisco4Ocular Inflammatory Disease Center, Jules Stein Eye Institute, University of California, Los Angeles5Department of Ophthalmology, David Geffen School of M.
Siripim GuadanantDepartment of Ophthalmology, Nakornping Hospital, Chiang Mai, Thailand.
Paradee KunavisarutDepartment of Ophthalmology, Faculty of Medicine, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai, Thailand.
Direk PatikulsilaDepartment of Ophthalmology, Faculty of Medicine, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai, Thailand.
Nawat WatanachaiDepartment of Ophthalmology, Faculty of Medicine, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai, Thailand.
Somsanguan AusayakhunDepartment of Ophthalmology, Faculty of Medicine, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai, Thailand.
David HeidenDepartment of Ophthalmology, California Pacific Medical Center, San Francisco.
Gary N HollandOcular Inflammatory Disease Center, Jules Stein Eye Institute, University of California, Los Angeles.
Todd P MargolisFrancis I. Proctor Foundation for Research in Ophthalmology, University of California, San Francisco8Department of Ophthalmology, University of California, San Francisco9currently with the Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, Washington Univer.
Jeremy D KeenanFrancis I. Proctor Foundation for Research in Ophthalmology, University of California, San Francisco8Department of Ophthalmology, University of California, San Francisco.
Chiang Mai University · THNakornping Hospital · THUniversity of California, Los Angeles · USUniversity of California, San Francisco · USCalifornia Pacific Medical Center · USIcahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai · US

Funding

Optimal trachoma control after mass antibiotic distributionsK23EY019071 · NEI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI KEENAN, JEREMY DAVID · 2008 to 2012
$982k
NEI NIH HHS K23 EY019071NEI NIH HHS K23EY019071
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

importanceCytomegalovirus (CMV) retinitis is a leading cause of blindness in many developing countries, likely the result of inadequate screening. Telemedicine screening for CMV retinitis instituted at the point of care for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection may allow for earlier detection.

objectivesTo determine the diagnostic accuracy of retinal photography in detecting CMV retinitis at the point of HIV care and to characterize the clinical manifestations of CMV retinitis detected through the screening program. DESIGN, SETTING, AND

participantsWe enrolled 103 participants from a population of 258 patients with HIV and a CD4 level of less than 100/μL treated at an HIV clinic in Thailand from June 2010 through June 2012. We captured mosaic fundus photographs through a dilated pupil using a digital fundus camera. An experienced on-site ophthalmologist masked to the results of the fundus images subsequently examined each eye with indirect ophthalmoscopy and recorded the clinical findings on a standardized form. Three remote graders evaluated each image for CMV retinitis.

interventionFundus photography and indirect ophthalmoscopy. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Sensitivity and specificity of telemedicine relative to indirect ophthalmoscopy for diagnosis of CMV retinitis and clinical features of CMV retinitis lesions.

resultsSixteen patients (15.5%) were diagnosed as having CMV retinitis, of whom 5 (31%) had bilateral disease. Of the 21 eyes (10.2%) with CMV retinitis, 7 (33%) had visual symptoms. Retinitis lesions occupied less than 10% of the total retinal surface area in 13 of 21 eyes (62%) and did not involve the posterior pole (ie, zone 1) in 15 of 21 eyes (71%). Mean logMAR visual acuity in affected eyes was 0.41 (95% CI, 0.11-0.71; Snellen equivalent, 20/50 [95% CI, 20/25-20/100]). The mean sensitivity for the 3 remote graders in detecting CMV retinitis on fundus photography was 30.2% (95% CI, 10.5%-52.4%), and mean specificity was 99.1% (95% CI, 97.8%-100.0%). The CMV retinitis lesions missed by the remote graders (false-negative findings) were more likely to be small (P = .001) and located in the peripheral retina (P = .04). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Patients undergoing screening at a clinic for HIV treatment had less extensive retinitis than patients in recent reports from an ophthalmology clinic. Retinal photography with the camera used in this study was not highly sensitive in detecting CMV retinitis but may identify disease with an immediate threat to vision. Improved accuracy will require a camera that can more easily image the peripheral retina.

Indexed as

Point-of-Care SystemsAdultAIDS-Related Opportunistic InfectionsCytomegalovirus RetinitisFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansIncidenceMaleMass ScreeningReproducibility of ResultsRetinaRetrospective StudiesTelemedicineThailandVisual Acuity

Identifiers

PMID25412344
PMCPMC7373367
OpenAlexW2004602450

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.