ArticleScientific reports2025
Retrospective audit reviewing accuracy of clinical diagnosis of geographic atrophy in a single centre private tertiary retinal practice in Australia.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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
Accurate diagnosis of both age-related macular degeneration (AMD) and inherited retinal diseases (IRD) with macular atrophy is important because treatments for both conditions are emerging. Phenotypical similarities between macular atrophy associated with AMD (geographic atrophy, GA) and IRD-associated atrophy exist, which can make accurate diagnosis challenging in clinical practice. Misdiagnosis may lead to inappropriate treatment strategies and missed opportunities for disease-specific interventions. A retrospective clinical review of medical records of people diagnosed with AMD between 1995 and 2023 from a large multidisciplinary private ophthalmic practice in Australia was undertaken to identify cases of patients diagnosed with geographic atrophy without drusen, which was then further assessed for potentially missed IRD with macular atrophy. Flagged cases were presented to experts in AMD and IRD to establish a most-likely diagnosis. Cases without consensus between graders were grouped into most-likely diagnosis by a third senior retinal clinician. Of the 1136 cases reviewed, the possible rate of misdiagnosis observed was 1.9%, with 1.0% representing potentially missed IRDs, most commonly pattern dystrophy (0.5%). A multi-modal approach, including clinical features and patient history, is important to limit the possibility of misdiagnosis of GA, and identify a subset of patients who might benefit from genetic testing prior to considering possible treatments.
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.