ArticleTranslational vision science & technology2024
Detecting Established Glaucoma Using OCT Alone: Utilizing an OCT Reading Center in a Real-World Clinical Setting.
Article in Translational vision science & technology, 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.
- Automated Identification of Clinically Relevant Regions in Glaucoma OCT Reports Using Expert Eye Tracking Data and Deep Learning.Translational vision science & technology · 2024Article
- Applications of deep learning in the analysis of optical coherence tomography images for glaucoma-related diagnostics.Taiwan journal of ophthalmologyReview
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.
Funding
Abstract
Purpose: We evaluated the ability of an optical coherence tomography (OCT)-based reading center for glaucoma (ORG) to detect established glaucoma using OCT alone. Methods: This study included eyes from 70 consecutive patients with established glaucoma (i.e. moderate or severe glaucoma according to the International Classification of Diseases [ICD]-10 guidelines) and 20 consecutive healthy subjects, who had no evidence of glaucomatous optic neuropathy (GON) or visual field (VF) loss in either eye. Using a standardized ORG quality assessment, 33 eyes were excluded due to media opacity (12), poor image quality (13), or epiretinal membrane (8). Of the remaining 147 eyes, 86 had established glaucoma and 36 were from healthy controls (total n = 122). Based on the OCT report alone and applying a previously described evaluation method, the presence of GON in each eye was determined by two masked ORG graders. The main outcome measures were sensitivity and specificity for detection of eyes with established glaucoma. Results: Of the 86 eyes with established glaucoma (average mean deviation [MD] = -10.9 ± 7.7 dB, range = -0.5 to -31.5 dB), only one eye (MD = -0.46) was missed (sensitivity = 98.8%). However, the other eye of this patient was correctly classified as GON. Therefore, at a patient level, sensitivity was 100%. None of the 36 healthy eyes was classified as GON by the ORG (specificity = 100%). Conclusions: An OCT-based reading center is able to identify eyes with established glaucoma using OCT alone with high sensitivity and specificity. Translational Relevance: Our study validates the use of a systematic OCT-based approach for glaucoma detection in a real-world setting.
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.