SynthesisEye (London, England)2017
Fundus autofluorescence imaging: systematic review of test accuracy for the diagnosis and monitoring of retinal conditions.
Synthesis in Eye (London, England), 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A Systematic Review of Artificial Intelligence Applications Used for Inherited Retinal Disease Management.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2022Pooled it
- A generalizable eye disease detection method based on Zero-Shot Learning.Communications medicine · 2026Article
- Case series: The value of fundus autofluorescence in inherited macular disease.Optometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry · 2026Article
- Advances in machine learning for ABCA4-related retinopathy: segmentation and phenotyping.International ophthalmology · 2025Review
- Discrepancies Between Autofluorescence Imaging Modalities in CNGB3-Associated Achromatopsia and Correlation With Ellipsoid Zone Continuity.Translational vision science & technology · 2025Article
- Longitudinal assessment of female carriers of choroideremia using multimodal retinal imaging.The British journal of ophthalmology · 2025Article
- Imaging the eye as a window to brain health: frontier approaches and future directions.Journal of neuroinflammation · 2024Review
- An Update on Multimodal Ophthalmological Imaging of Diffuse Choroidal Hemangioma in Sturge-Weber Syndrome.Vision (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Review of Retinal Imaging Modalities for Hydroxychloroquine Retinopathy.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Fundus autofluorescence and optical coherence tomography biomarkers associated with the progression of geographic atrophy secondary to age-related macular degeneration.Eye (London, England) · 2022Article
- Non-interferometric volumetric imaging in living human retina by confocal oblique scanning laser ophthalmoscopy.Biomedical optics express · 2022Article
- Review
- Subthreshold yellow laser for fovea-involving diabetic macular edema in a series of patients with good vision: effectiveness and safety of a fovea-sparing technique.BMC ophthalmology · 2020Article
- Is oblique scanning laser ophthalmoscope applicable to human ocular optics? A feasibility study using an eye model for volumetric imaging.Journal of biophotonics · 2020Article
- Adaptive optics scanning laser ophthalmoscopy in fundus imaging, a review and update.International journal of ophthalmology · 2017Review
- The role of multimodal imaging and vision function testing inTherapeutic advances in ophthalmologyReview
- Autofluorescence indexes as biomarkers for antiangiogenic loading dose outcome in diabetic macular edema.Therapeutic advances in ophthalmologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We conducted a systematic review of the accuracy of fundus autofluorescence (FAF) imaging for diagnosing and monitoring retinal conditions. Searches in November 2014 identified English language references. Sources included MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and MEDION databases; reference lists of retrieved studies; and internet pages of relevant organisations, meetings, and trial registries. For inclusion, studies had to report FAF imaging accuracy quantitatively. Studies were critically appraised using QUADAS risk of bias criteria. Two reviewers conducted all review steps. From 2240 unique references identified, eight primary research studies met the inclusion criteria. These investigated diagnostic accuracy of FAF imaging for choroidal neovascularisation (one study), reticular pseudodrusen (three studies), cystoid macular oedema (two studies), and diabetic macular oedema (two studies). Diagnostic sensitivity of FAF imaging ranged from 32 to 100% and specificity from 34 to 100%. However, owing to methodological limitations, including high and/or unclear risks of bias, none of these studies provides conclusive evidence of the diagnostic accuracy of FAF imaging. Study heterogeneity precluded meta-analysis. In most studies, the patient spectrum was not reflective of those who would present in clinical practice and no studies adequately reported whether FAF images were interpreted consistently. No studies of monitoring accuracy were identified. An update in October 2016, based on MEDLINE and internet searches, identified four new studies but did not alter our conclusions. Robust quantitative evidence on the accuracy of FAF imaging and how FAF images are interpreted is lacking. We provide recommendations to address this.
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.