ArticlePloS one2019
Accuracy of computer-assisted vertical cup-to-disk ratio grading for glaucoma screening.
Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- [Glaucoma care in Germany-Results of a survey among German ophthalmologists-Part 1: diagnostics].Der Ophthalmologe : Zeitschrift der Deutschen Ophthalmologischen Gesellschaft · 2022Article
- Accuracy of vertical cup-to-disc ratio discrimination among clinical optometry trainees with different years of clinical experience.PloS one · 2022Article
- Artificial intelligence integrated smartphone fundus camera for screening the glaucomatous optic disc.Indian journal of ophthalmology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeGlaucoma screening can be performed by assessing the vertical-cup-to-disk ratio (VCDR) of the optic nerve head from fundus photography, but VCDR grading is inherently subjective. This study investigated whether computer software could improve the accuracy and repeatability of VCDR assessment.
methodsIn this cross-sectional diagnostic accuracy study, 5 ophthalmologists independently assessed the VCDR from a set of 200 optic disk images, with the median grade used as the reference standard for subsequent analyses. Eight non-ophthalmologists graded each image by two different methods: by visual inspection and with assistance from a custom-made publicly available software program. Agreement with the reference standard grade was assessed for each method by calculating the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), and the sensitivity and specificity determined relative to a median ophthalmologist grade of ≥0.7.
resultsVCDR grades ranged from 0.1 to 0.9 for visual assessment and from 0.1 to 1.0 for software-assisted grading, with a median grade of 0.4 for each. Agreement between each of the 8 graders and the reference standard was higher for visual inspection (median ICC 0.65, interquartile range 0.57 to 0.82) than for software-assisted grading (median ICC 0.59, IQR 0.44 to 0.71); P = 0.02, Wilcoxon signed-rank test). Visual inspection and software assistance had similar sensitivity and specificity for detecting glaucomatous cupping.
conclusionThe computer software used in this study did not improve the reproducibility or validity of VCDR grading from fundus photographs compared with simple visual inspection. More clinical experience was correlated with higher agreement with the ophthalmologist VCDR reference standard.
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.