ArticleClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)2024
Evaluation of Sensitivity and Specificity of Acuity 360 Telemedicine Vision Screening System.
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. 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.
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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Our aim is to evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of Acuity 360 telemedicine system, as compared to in-person clinic examination, in identifying clinically significant eye disease. Acuity 360 is a combination of commercially available ocular imaging devices used together to provide a comprehensive evaluation of the structures and diseases of the eye. Methods: Observational cross-sectional study of consecutively examined patients where 19 remote examiners analyzed 80 patients using Acuity 360 images. The examiners' diagnoses were compared to the diagnosis obtained from in-person clinic examination of all the patients. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), false-negative rate, and inter-rater agreement were calculated. Results: Compared to in-person clinic examination, the sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and false-negative rate for the optical coherence tomography (OCT) of optic nerve were 95.8%, 98.5%, 86.8%, 99.6%, 0.39% and for the combined retina examination (OCT of the macula and widefield fundus photography) were 93.4%, 88.5%, 80.2%, 96.4%, 2.19%, respectively. The median inter-rater agreement the OCT of optic nerve and the combined retina examination were each 95%. Conclusion: The Acuity 360 telemedicine system has a low false-negative rate and is highly sensitive and specific when compared to an in-person clinic examination. It can determine the necessity for specialist referral and triage the patients that require urgent treatment. High inter-rater agreement shows that it is effective with minimal variability in analyzing the Acuity 360 images by remote examiners.
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.