ArticleGraefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie2022
Algorithm of the major and minor diagnostic criteria for active myopic choroidal neovascularization.
Article in Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie, 2022. 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.
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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo propose an algorithm of the major and minor diagnostic criteria for macular myopic choroidal neovascularization (mCNV).
methodsThis single-center, retrospective, cross-sectional study was based in Istituto Auxologico Italiano, Milan, Italy. Two authors evaluated the clinical and imaging parameters of eyes with high myopia (spherical equivalent of -6D or less) and suspected to have naïve, recurrent, or inactive mCNV. Recordings of the eyes that met the inclusion criteria were then independently evaluated by two other senior retinal specialists. Fluorescein angiography (FA), spectral domain optical coherence tomography (SD-OCT), and OCT angiography were used for multimodal imaging.
resultsOne-hundred and twenty-two eyes (n = 107; 39 men, 68 women) were included in the study. The mean patient age was 66 years (range, 22-89 years). There were 83 and 39 eyes in the active mCNV and control groups, respectively. The best diagnostic algorithm had positive- and negative-predictive values of 89% and 85%, respectively, and was based on four criteria: leakage/staining on FA, retinal thickening, fuzzy area on SD-OCT, and recent metamorphopsia. When excluding FA-derived findings, retinal pigment epithelium (RPE) features played a diagnostic role in 33 eyes (27%). Twenty-seven eyes with active mCNV (32%) did not have the fuzzy area. Taken singularly, no clinical or imaging parameter had both sensitivity and specificity greater than 78%. Matching of 2 or 3 biomarkers did not yield a sensitivity or specificity greater than 79%. Sensitivities and specificities ≥ 90% were found in ten criteria combinations that included four to five biomarkers. The most frequent were metamorphopsia, fuzzy area, retinal thickening, and leakage. Less frequently, they included hemorrhage, staining, and RPE features such as elevation, flattening, and focal interruption. For all the parameters, the agreement between the investigators was good (Cohen k ≥ 0.66), being the lowest when detecting the ELM interruption within the lesion.
conclusionsA combination of at least four clinical and biological markers yielded the highest positive- and negative-predictive values. More ("major") and less ("minor") frequent diagnostic criteria are proposed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
35435447What 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.