ArticleClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)2024
Automated Optic Nerve Head Hemoglobin Measurements versus General Ophthalmologists Evaluation to Differentiate Glaucomatous from Large Physiological Cupping: A Diagnostic Performance Comparative Study.
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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: The aim of this study is to compare the diagnostic performance in differentiating patients with glaucoma from those with presumed large physiological optic disc cupping (LPC), using optic nerve head hemoglobin levels (ONH Hb), as a screening method, versus the evaluation of general ophthalmologists. Patients and Methods: Twenty general ophthalmologists evaluated PowerPoint images of 40 patients with glaucoma and 40 presenting LPC. Presentation of patient's exams were distributed as follows: Group 1 (GI): color retinography (CR), Group 2 (GII): CR + visual field (VF), Group 3 (GIII): CR + optical coherence tomography (OCT), Group 4 (GIV): CR + VF + OCT. The Laguna ONhE software was used to estimate ONH Hb based on CR. Main outcomes were the comparison of sensitivity and accuracy between general ophthalmologists' evaluation and the glaucoma discriminant function (GDF) index from Laguna ONhE and also the agreement between examiners (Kappa statistics). Results: Laguna ONhE GDF index demonstrated higher sensitivity values (GI- 90%; GII-90%; GIII-100%; GIV-100%) comparing to all groups (GI-59%; GII-86.5%; GIII-86.5%; GIV-68.5%). In GI, in which it was observed the worst accuracy result (64.8%), we found 75% for GDF. In GII, the accuracy was 81.3% and we found 55% for GDF. The highest agreement was in GII (Kappa=0.63; 95% CI=0.53-0.72), and the lowest in GI (Kappa=0.30; 95% CI=0.20-0.39). Conclusion: Laguna ONhE software, a low-cost and non-invasive method, showed good sensitivity and great utility as a screening method in differentiating patients with glaucoma from those with LPC, compared with evaluation of general ophthalmologists.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.