ArticleDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2022
Combining Optical Coherence Tomography and Fundus Photography to Improve Glaucoma Screening.
Article in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Multidimensional imaging model for diagnosing primary open-angle glaucoma using fundus photographs and optical coherence tomography images.BMJ open ophthalmology · 2025Article
- Artificial intelligence in stroke risk assessment and management via retinal imaging.Frontiers in computational neuroscience · 2025Review
- Evaluating Diagnostic Concordance in Primary Open-Angle Glaucoma Among Academic Glaucoma Subspecialists.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Automatic retinal image analysis methods using colour fundus images for screening glaucomatous optic neuropathy.BMJ open ophthalmology · 2024Article
- Review
- Comparative Evaluation of Fundus Image Interpretation Accuracy in Glaucoma Screening Among Different Physician Groups.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2024Article
- Deep Learning and The Retina: A New Frontier in Multiple Sclerosis Diagnosis.Current health sciences journalReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
We aimed to evaluate the accuracy of glaucoma screening using fundus photography combined with optical coherence tomography and determine the agreement between ophthalmologists and ophthalmology residents. We used a comprehensive ophthalmologic examination dataset obtained from 503 cases (1006 eyes). Of the 1006 eyes, 132 had a confirmed glaucoma diagnosis. Overall, 24 doctors, comprising two groups (ophthalmologists and ophthalmology residents, 12 individuals/group), analyzed the data presented in three screening strategies as follows: (1) fundus photography alone, (2) fundus photography + optical coherence tomography, and (3) fundus photography + optical coherence tomography + comprehensive examination. We investigated the diagnostic accuracy (sensitivity and specificity). The respective sensitivity and specificity values for the diagnostic accuracy obtained by 24 doctors, 12 ophthalmologists, and 12 ophthalmology residents were as follows: (1) fundus photography: sensitivity, 55.4%, 55.4%, and 55.4%; specificity, 91.8%, 94.0%, and 89.6%; (2) fundus photography + OCT: sensitivity, 80.0%, 82.3%, and 77.8%; specificity, 91.7%, 92.9%, and 90.6%; and (3) fundus photography + OCT + comprehensive examination: sensitivity 78.4%, 79.8%, and 77.1%; specificity, 92.7%, 94.0%, and 91.3%. The diagnostic accuracy of glaucoma screening significantly increased with optical coherence tomography. Following its addition, ophthalmologists could more effectively improve the diagnostic accuracy than ophthalmology residents. Screening accuracy is improved when optical coherence tomography is added to fundus photography.
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.