ArticleTranslational vision science & technology2022
External Validation and Clinical Applicability of Two Optical Coherence Tomography-Based Risk Calculators for Detecting Glaucoma.
Article in Translational vision science & technology, 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, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
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
9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To clinically validate the diagnostic ability of two optical coherence tomography (OCT)-based glaucoma diagnostic calculators (GDCs). Methods: We conducted a retrospective, consecutive sampling of 76 patients with primary open-angle glaucoma, 107 glaucoma suspects, and 67 controls. Demographics, reliable visual field testing, and macular and optic disc OCT were collected. The reference diagnosis was compared against the probability of having glaucoma obtained from two GDCs derived from multivariate logistic regressions using quantitative and qualitative (GDC1) or only quantitative (GDC2) OCT data. The discrimination (area under the curve [AUC]) and calibration (calibration plots) were compared for both calculators and the best OCT parameters. Results: GDC2 was able to identify 46.9% more suspects and 14.7% more glaucomatous eyes than GDC1. Both GDCs obtained the highest discriminative ability in glaucomatous eyes (GDC1 AUC = 0.949; GDC2 = 0.943 vs inferior peripapillary retinal nerve fiber layer [pRNFL] = 0.931; P = 0.43). The discriminating ability was not as good for glaucoma suspects, but the GDCs were not inferior to pRNFL (GDC 1 AUC = 0.739; GDC2 = 0.730; inferior pRNFL = 0.760; P = 0.54) and GDC2 was still able to correctly identify up to 30.8% more cases than the conventional OCT classification. Calibration showed risk underestimation for both groups and calculators, but it was better in GDC2 and in patients with glaucoma. Conclusions: OCT-based calculators showed an excellent diagnostic performance in glaucomatous eyes. GDC2 was able to identify approximately 30% more cases than the conventional pRNFL inferior OCT classification in both groups, suggesting a potential role of these composite scores in clinical practice. Translational Relevance: These OCT-based calculators may improve glaucoma diagnosis in clinical care.
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.