Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34110450›Full record

SynthesisGraefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie2021

Sensitivity and specificity of optical coherence tomography angiography in the diagnosis of active choroidal neovascularization: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Miao Wang, Sheng Gao, Yun Zhang, Meixia Zhang

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 32% 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Disease-CausingInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2024
    Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Miao WangMacular Disease Research Laboratory, Department of Ophthalmology, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, 610041, China.
Sheng GaoMacular Disease Research Laboratory, Department of Ophthalmology, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, 610041, China.
Yun ZhangMacular Disease Research Laboratory, Department of Ophthalmology, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, 610041, China.
Meixia ZhangMacular Disease Research Laboratory, Department of Ophthalmology, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, 610041, China. coretina@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4475-4843
Sichuan University · CN

Funding

National Clinical Research Center for Geriatrics no. Z2018B22Sichuan Provincial Science and Technology Support Project no.2018FZ0031
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThis meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the diagnostic value of optical coherence tomography angiography (OCTA) for active choroidal neovascularization (CNV) of all types and etiologies.

methodsWe searched the Web of Science, PubMed, Cochrane Library, Medline, and Embase databases for all interrelated published studies from inception to August 2020. Meta-disc and STATA were used for the data analyses. We measured the diagnostic value by assessing the pooled diagnostic sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR), diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and area under the summary receiver operating characteristic curve (sROC AUC). Sources of heterogeneity were also analyzed.

resultsNine studies involving 785 eyes were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled sensitivity was 0.83 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.75-0.88), specificity was 0.89 (95% CI, 0.79-0.94), PLR was 7.4 (95% CI, 3.8-14.6), NLR was 0.20 (95% CI, 0.13-0.29), and DOR was 38 (95% CI, 16-91). The sROC AUC was 0.91 (95% CI, 0.89-0.94). With respect to heterogeneity, the sensitivity of the fluorescein angiography (FA) reference standard group (0.71 [0.64-0.78]) and developed country group (0.77 [0.70-0.84]) was both lower than the sensitivity of the FA combined with optical coherence tomography (OCT) reference standard group (0.89 [0.84-0.93], P < 0.001) and developing country group (0.90 [0.85-0.95], P < 0.001).

conclusionsThis meta-analysis suggests that OCTA is a non-invasive, convenient diagnostic method for active CNV and has high diagnostic value. Moreover, the accuracy of the diagnostic accuracy is independent of the types of device, algorithms, and the etiology of CNV.

Indexed as

Choroidal NeovascularizationTomography, Optical CoherenceFluorescein AngiographyHumansROC CurveSensitivity and SpecificityChoroidal neovascularizationMeta-analysisOptical coherence tomography angiographySensitivity and specificity of diagnosis

Identifiers

PMID34110450
OpenAlexW3168760904

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.