ArticleRisk management and healthcare policy2021
Agreement of Optic Nerve Head Evaluation of Primary Open-Angle Glaucoma Between General Ophthalmologists and Glaucoma Specialists.
Article in Risk management and healthcare policy, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
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 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo investigate the agreement of optic nerve head evaluations and initial diagnoses of primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG) by general ophthalmologists and glaucoma specialists in Shanghai, China.
methodsThis multicenter, cross-sectional study involved the outpatients from the general ophthalmology departments of four top eye hospitals in Shanghai. The participants underwent ocular examinations, including intraocular pressure, fundus photography, corneal thickness, refractometry, visual acuity, visual field and gonioscopy. General ophthalmologists and glaucoma specialists performed the diagnoses and classified them as non-glaucoma, POAG suspects, and POAG. The consistency of initial diagnosis between general ophthalmologists and glaucoma specialists was measured using the weighted kappa coefficient. Logistic regression analysis was used to detect the risk factors for the reliability of POAG diagnosis.
resultsIn 922 participants, the initial diagnosis rates of POAG and non-glaucoma were much higher in the glaucoma specialist group than in the general ophthalmologist group, while the initial diagnosis rates of POAG suspects were higher in the general ophthalmologist group. The weighted kappa coefficient between the two groups was 0.831±0.027 (95% confidence interval, 0.779-0.884). Logistic regression analysis of the risk factors for the reliability of POAG diagnosis showed that the independent risk factors were intraocular pressure (OR 8.363, 95% CI: 4.27-16.37) and vertical cup-to-disc ratio (OR 3.459, 95% CI: 1.54-7.76).
conclusionThe diagnosis consistency between the general ophthalmologists and the glaucoma specialists was similar among outpatients in the area of Shanghai. However, general ophthalmologists tended to classify the indefinite subjects as POAG suspects, and their accuracy in diagnosing POAG was low. By paying more attention to the risk factors of POAG diagnosis, general ophthalmologists could improve the diagnosis accuracy.
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.