Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38435375›Full record

ArticleClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)2024

Comparative Evaluation of Fundus Image Interpretation Accuracy in Glaucoma Screening Among Different Physician Groups.

Chiharu Wada-Koike, Ryo Terauchi, Kota Fukai, Kei Sano, Euido Nishijima, Koji Komatsu, Kyoko Ito, Tomohiro Kato, Masayuki Tatemichi, Yoshiaki Kabata and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 15% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. [Neurodegeneration and retinal changes-A literature overview].Zeitschrift fur Gerontologie und Geriatrie · 2025
    Review
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Chiharu Wada-Koike *Department of Ophthalmology, The Jikei University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan.
Ryo Terauchi *Department of Ophthalmology, The Jikei University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan.
Kota FukaiDepartment of Preventive Medicine, Tokai University School of Medicine, Isehara, Japan.
Kei SanoDepartment of Ophthalmology, The Jikei University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan.
Euido NishijimaDepartment of Ophthalmology, The Jikei University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan.
Koji KomatsuDepartment of Ophthalmology, The Jikei University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan.
Kyoko ItoCentre for Preventive Medicine, The Jikei University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan.
Tomohiro KatoCentre for Preventive Medicine, The Jikei University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan.ORCID 0000-0001-5878-5320
Masayuki TatemichiDepartment of Preventive Medicine, Tokai University School of Medicine, Isehara, Japan.
Yoshiaki Kabata *Department of Ophthalmology, Jikei University School of Medicine, Daisan Hospital, Tokyo, Japan.ORCID 0009-0004-5819-1126
Tadashi NakanoDepartment of Ophthalmology, The Jikei University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan.ORCID 0000-0002-3184-1991
Jikei University School of Medicine · JPTokai University · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: To examine the variability in glaucoma screening using fundus images among physicians, including non-ophthalmologists. Patients and Methods: Sixty-nine eyes from 69 patients, including 25 eyes with glaucoma, were included from the Jikei University Hospital from July 2019 to December 2022. Fundus images were captured using TRC-NW8 (Topcon Corporation, Tokyo, Japan), and were interpreted by 10 non-ophthalmologists, 10 non-specialist ophthalmologists, and 9 specialists for diagnostic accuracy. We analyzed differences in diagnostic accuracy among the three groups. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and Kappa coefficient were compared, using the Kruskal-Wallis test followed by a post hoc Dunn's test. Results: The sensitivity and specificity were 0.22 and 0.92 for non-ophthalmologists, 0.49 and 0.83 for non-specialist ophthalmologists, and 0.68 and 0.87 for specialists, respectively. Both specialists and non-specialist ophthalmologists showed significantly higher sensitivity than non-ophthalmologists (Dunn's test, P<0.001 and P=0.031). There was no significant difference in specificity among the three groups (Kruskal-Wallis test, P=0.086). The PPV did not differ significantly between the groups (Kruskal-Wallis test, P=0.108), while the NPV was significantly higher in specialists compared to non-ophthalmologists (Dunn's test, P<0.001). Specialists also had a significantly higher Kappa coefficient than non-ophthalmologists and non-specialist ophthalmologists (Dunn's test, P<0.001 and P=0.024). Conclusion: Diagnostic accuracy varied significantly based on the physician's background.

Indexed as

fundus imagesglaucomahealth checkupsensitivityspecificity

Identifiers

PMID38435375
PMCPMC10908285
OpenAlexW4392170722

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.