Ocular immunology and inflammation · 2013
Validity and agreement of uveitis experts in interpretation of ocular photographs for diagnosis of Behçet uveitis.
СтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
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.
Tugal-Tutkun Ilknur, Onal Sumru, Ozyazgan Yilmaz, Soylu Merih, Akman Mehmet
Аннотация
UNLABELLED: Abstract Purpose: To evaluate agreement and estimate sensitivity and specificity of uveitis specialists' interpretation of ocular photographs in diagnosing Behçet uveitis.
METHODS: Fourteen Turkish uveitis specialists, masked to demographic and clinical features of patients, independently labeled ocular photographs (29 Behçet/30 other diagnoses) as "Behçet uveitis" or "non-Behçet." Level of agreement was evaluated using kappa statistics. Photographs were categorized based on ocular signs captured and performance of observers.
RESULTS: Exact agreement with the correct diagnosis was 56-81%. Seven reviewers correctly labeled more than 70% of photographs. Interobserver agreement among those 7 reviewers revealed moderate (κ = 0.41-0.60) or substantial (κ = 0.61-0.80) agreement in 76% of pairs. Smooth layered hypopyon, superficial retinal infiltrate with retinal hemorrhages, and branch retinal vein occlusion with vitreous haze were correctly recognized as Behçet uveitis by majority of reviewers.
CONCLUSIONS: There are ocular signs of Behçet disease that can be considered diagnostic even in the absence of any other clinical information.
METHODS: Fourteen Turkish uveitis specialists, masked to demographic and clinical features of patients, independently labeled ocular photographs (29 Behçet/30 other diagnoses) as "Behçet uveitis" or "non-Behçet." Level of agreement was evaluated using kappa statistics. Photographs were categorized based on ocular signs captured and performance of observers.
RESULTS: Exact agreement with the correct diagnosis was 56-81%. Seven reviewers correctly labeled more than 70% of photographs. Interobserver agreement among those 7 reviewers revealed moderate (κ = 0.41-0.60) or substantial (κ = 0.61-0.80) agreement in 76% of pairs. Smooth layered hypopyon, superficial retinal infiltrate with retinal hemorrhages, and branch retinal vein occlusion with vitreous haze were correctly recognized as Behçet uveitis by majority of reviewers.
CONCLUSIONS: There are ocular signs of Behçet disease that can be considered diagnostic even in the absence of any other clinical information.