ArticlePeerJ2017
External validation of cut-off points for foveal thickness taking into account the intraretinal fluid using optical coherence tomography to diagnose diabetic macular oedema.
Article in PeerJ, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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 at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn late 2015, cut-off points were published for foveal thickness to diagnose diabetic macular oedema taking into account the presence of intraretinal fluid using optical coherence tomography (OCT) in primary care patients (90 µm in the presence of intraretinal fluid and 310 µm otherwise).
methodsThis cross-sectional observational study was carried out on 134 eyes of diabetic patients treated in specialised ophthalmology services in a Spanish region in 2012-2013, to externally validate the aforementioned cut-off points. The main variable (Clinical Standard) was the diagnosis of macular oedema through indirect ophthalmoscopy and posterior segment slit-lamp biomicroscopy. As validation variables, both the foveal thickness and the presence of intraretinal fluid obtained by OCT were used. Validation was performed using bootstrapping by calculating the area under the ROC curve (AUC), sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (PLR) and negative likelihood ratio (NLR).
resultsForty-one eyes presented diabetic macular oedema (30.6%). The bootstrapping validation parameters were: AUC, 0.88; sensitivity, 0.75; specificity, 0.95; PLR, 14.31; NLR, 0.26. These values were very similar to those of the original publication.
conclusionWe have externally validated in specialised care patients the cut-off points published for the diagnosis of diabetic macular oedema. We suggest that others carry out validation studies in their communities.
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.