Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29858676›Full record

ArticleGraefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie2018

Subjective evaluation of visual acuity is not reliable to detect disease activity in different exudative maculopathies.

Marie-Christine Bruender, Nicola Benjamin, Hansjuergen Thomas Agostini, Andreas Stahl, Christoph Ehlken

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 36% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Self-examination low-cost full-field OCT (SELFF-OCT) for patients with various macular diseases.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2021
    Article
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Marie-Christine BruenderEye Center, Medical Center, Faculty of Medicine, Albert-Ludwigs-University, Killianstraße 5, 79106, Freiburg im Breisgau, Germany.
Nicola BenjaminCenter for Pulmonary Hypertension, Thoraxclinic at the University Hospital Heidelberg, Röntgenstraße 1, 69126, Heidelberg, Germany.
Hansjuergen Thomas AgostiniEye Center, Medical Center, Faculty of Medicine, Albert-Ludwigs-University, Killianstraße 5, 79106, Freiburg im Breisgau, Germany.
Andreas StahlEye Center, Medical Center, Faculty of Medicine, Albert-Ludwigs-University, Killianstraße 5, 79106, Freiburg im Breisgau, Germany.
Christoph EhlkenEye Center, Medical Center, Faculty of Medicine, Albert-Ludwigs-University, Killianstraße 5, 79106, Freiburg im Breisgau, Germany. christoph.ehlken@uksh.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7388-7173
Heidelberg University · DEUniversity of Freiburg · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPatients with exudative maculopathies (neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD), diabetic macular edema (DME), and retinal vein occlusion (RVO)) are faced with a high burden of examinations and treatments. This study was conceived to analyze the accuracy of a subjective evaluation of visual acuity (VA) and metamorphopsia to detect disease reactivation, compared to morphological signs of reactivation assessed by means of SD-OCT.

methodsRetrospective study of 888 patients treated for nAMD (n = 638), DME (84), BRVO (110), and CRVO (56) was conducted. Subjective evaluation of the patient at an examination (i.e., change of VA and/or metamorphopsia) was compared to clinical evaluation of disease activity as assessed by SD-OCT. Sensitivity and specificity, negative and positive predictive values (PPV/NPV) for detection of active disease were calculated. Factors associated with false-negative subjective evaluation were analyzed by regression analysis.

resultsThe sensitivity of the subjective evaluation to detect disease reactivation was < 0.50 in all exudative maculopathies. Sensitivity was increased to ≥ 0.60 by combining subjective worsening with loss of 1 line in the VA test in RVO, but not in DME and nAMD. The specificity was > 0.85 in all patients. PPV was > 0.85 in patients with RVO. Regression analysis did not reveal any factors that could reliably identify patient subgroups in which OCT could be omitted, though CRVO patients with a visual acuity of < 0.3 logMAR had an odds ratio of 0.20 for false-negative subjective evaluation (p = 0.009).

conclusionThe accuracy of subjective evaluation to discriminate disease activity in patients with different exudative maculopathies was low and cannot substitute for frequent SD-OCT exams. Routinely assessed clinical parameters such as age, visual acuity, or treatment experience were of no use to predict the validity of subjective evaluation of disease activity.

trial registrationThis trial was registered at the DRKS (Deutsches Register Klinischer Studien, drks.de; No 00006851) prior to the inclusion of the first patient.

Indexed as

Visual AcuityAgedAged, 80 and overDiabetic RetinopathyDiagnosis, DifferentialFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansMacular EdemaMaleReproducibility of ResultsRetinaRetrospective StudiesSeverity of Illness IndexTime FactorsTomography, Optical CoherenceDiagnosisDiagnostic accuracyMacular edemaMaculopathySensitivitySpecificity

Identifiers

PMID29858676
OpenAlexW2807060324

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.