Progress in preventive medicine (New York, N.Y.) · 2018
Physical Activity and the Development of Substance Use Disorders: Current Knowledge and Future Directions.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Cao Binh, Giri Puspa, Byanju Raghunandan, Pradhan Sangita, Bhandari Gopal, Bhandari Sadhan, Kandel Ram Prasad, Poudyal Bimal, Gonzales John A, Srinivasan Muthiah, Upadhyay Madan, Whitcher John P, O'Brien Kieran S, Lietman Thomas M, Keenan Jeremy D
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of smartphone corneal photography in detecting corneal opacities in a community-based setting.
METHODS: A case-control, diagnostic accuracy study was nested in a cluster-randomized trial of a corneal ulcer prevention intervention in Nepal. Smartphone corneal photography was performed annually on community members self-reporting a potential risk factor for a corneal infection. Corneal photographs were graded for the presence or absence of an opacity. All cases with an opacity on smartphone photography and an equal number of controls were invited for a comprehensive eye examination with a slit lamp biomicroscope at an eye hospital. A mobile team visited participants unable to come to the hospital, conducting a limited examination with a penlight.
RESULTS: Of 1332 study participants (666 cases and 666 controls), 1097 had a penlight examination (535 cases and 562 controls) and 191 had a slit lamp examination (120 cases and 71 controls). When penlight examination was considered the reference standard, smartphone diagnosis of a corneal opacity had a positive predictive value (PPV) of 47% (95% confidence interval 43-52%) and negative predictive value (NPV) of 95% (93-97%). When slit lamp examination was considered the reference standard, the overall PPV and NPV were 71% (62-78%) and 80% (70-88%), respectively. The NPV was greater for detection of opacities > 1mm, estimated at 95% (90-98%).
CONCLUSIONS: Corneal photography performed in a resource-limited community-based setting using a smartphone coupled to an external attachment had acceptable diagnostic accuracy for detection of corneal opacities large enough to be clinically meaningful.
METHODS: A case-control, diagnostic accuracy study was nested in a cluster-randomized trial of a corneal ulcer prevention intervention in Nepal. Smartphone corneal photography was performed annually on community members self-reporting a potential risk factor for a corneal infection. Corneal photographs were graded for the presence or absence of an opacity. All cases with an opacity on smartphone photography and an equal number of controls were invited for a comprehensive eye examination with a slit lamp biomicroscope at an eye hospital. A mobile team visited participants unable to come to the hospital, conducting a limited examination with a penlight.
RESULTS: Of 1332 study participants (666 cases and 666 controls), 1097 had a penlight examination (535 cases and 562 controls) and 191 had a slit lamp examination (120 cases and 71 controls). When penlight examination was considered the reference standard, smartphone diagnosis of a corneal opacity had a positive predictive value (PPV) of 47% (95% confidence interval 43-52%) and negative predictive value (NPV) of 95% (93-97%). When slit lamp examination was considered the reference standard, the overall PPV and NPV were 71% (62-78%) and 80% (70-88%), respectively. The NPV was greater for detection of opacities > 1mm, estimated at 95% (90-98%).
CONCLUSIONS: Corneal photography performed in a resource-limited community-based setting using a smartphone coupled to an external attachment had acceptable diagnostic accuracy for detection of corneal opacities large enough to be clinically meaningful.