ArticleBioMed research international2015
Diagnostic Accuracy of Nonmydriatic Fundus Photography for the Detection of Glaucoma in Diabetic Patients.
Article in BioMed research international, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluating the outcome of screening for glaucoma using colour fundus photography-based referral criteria in a teleophthalmology screening programme for diabetic retinopathy.The British journal of ophthalmology · 2024Article
- Validity of code based algorithms to identify primary open angle glaucoma (POAG) in Veterans Affairs (VA) administrative databases.Ophthalmic epidemiology · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo determine the diagnostic accuracy for glaucoma of a set of criteria with nonmydriatic monoscopic fundus photography (NMFP) in diabetics.
methodsDiabetics recruited from a screening program for diabetic retinopathy and diabetic glaucoma patients recruited from our glaucoma unit were included. Any patient with evidence of diabetic retinopathy was excluded. Diabetic patients had to have no visual field defects to be included as controls. Glaucoma patients had to have a glaucomatous field defect in at least one eye to be included. One NMFP was taken per eye for all subjects. These photographs were evaluated by two masked glaucoma specialists for the presence of the following: bilateral cup to disc (C/D) ratio ≥ 0.6, notching or thinning of the neuroretinal rim, disc hemorrhages, and asymmetry in the C/D ratio between both eyes ≥ 0.2. This evaluation led to a dichotomous classification: if any of the above criteria was present, the patient was classified as glaucoma. If none were present, the patient was classified as normal.
results72 control subjects and 72 glaucoma patients were included. Evaluation of NMFP had a sensitivity of 79.17% and a specificity of 80.56% for specialist 1 and a sensitivity of 72.22% and a specificity of 88.88% for specialist 2 for the detection of glaucoma. The overall accuracy was 79.83% and 80.55%, respectively. DISCUSSION: NMFP evaluation by a glaucoma specialist may be useful for the detection of glaucoma in diabetics.
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.