ArticleEye (London, England)2024
Diagnostic accuracy of self-reported age-related macular degeneration in the ASPREE Longitudinal Study of Older Persons.
Article in Eye (London, England), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 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
10 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe validity of findings from epidemiological studies using self-report of ophthalmic conditions depends on several factors. We assessed the diagnostic accuracy of self-reported age-related macular degeneration (AMD) among older Australians enroled in a primary prevention clinical trial and compared diagnostic accuracy between demographic subgroups.
methodsAt baseline (2010-2015), Australian sub-study participants of the ASPirin in Reducing Events in the Elderly (ASPREE) trial, underwent bilateral two-field, 45° non-mydriatic colour retinal photography. Beckman classification of any-stage AMD was used as the reference standard diagnosis. Participants were asked whether a doctor had ever diagnosed them with "macular degeneration" (the index test) via a paper-based questionnaire as part of the ASPREE Longitudinal Study of Older Persons (ALSOP) within the first year of enrolment.
resultsIn total, 4193 participants were included (aged 70-92 years, 50.8% female). Of those, 262 (6.3%) reported having AMD and 92 (2.2%) were unsure. Retinal grading detected 2592 (61.8%) with no AMD, 867 (20.7%) with early, 686 (16.4%) with intermediate and 48 (1.1%) with late AMD (n = 1601 with any-stage AMD, 38.2%). Self-reported AMD had 11.4% sensitivity (95% CI 9.9-13.1) and 96.9% specificity (95% CI 96.2-97.6) for any-stage AMD, with 69.8% and 63.9% positive and negative predictive values. Sensitivity was higher among participants with late-stage AMD (87.5%), older participants (26.8%), and those with poorer vision (41.0%).
conclusionsAlthough most participants with late-stage AMD were aware of having AMD, the majority with early and intermediate AMD were not. Therefore, findings from studies that rely on disease self-report should be interpreted with caution.
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.