Eye (London, England) · 2011
Comparing approaches to screening for angle closure in older Chinese adults.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание 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.
Andrews J, Chang D S, Jiang Y, He M, Foster P J, Munoz B, Kashiwagi K, Friedman D S
Аннотация
AIMS: Primary angle-closure glaucoma is expected to account for nearly 50% of bilateral glaucoma blindness by 2020. This study was conducted to assess the performance of the scanning peripheral anterior chamber depth analyzer (SPAC) and limbal anterior chamber depth (LACD) as screening methods for angle closure.
METHODS: This study assessed two clinical populations to compare SPAC, LACD, and gonioscopy: the Zhongshan Angle-closure Prevention Trial, from which 370 patients were eligible as closed-angle participants and the Liwan Eye Study, from which 72 patients were selected as open-angle controls. Eligible participants were assessed by SPAC, LACD, and gonioscopy.
RESULTS: Angle status was defined by gonioscopy. Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) for SPAC was 0.92 (0.89-0.95) whereas AUROC for LACD was 0.94 (0.92-0.97). Using conventional cutoff points, sensitivity/specificity was 93.0%/70.8% for SPAC and 94.1%/87.5% for LACD. Sequential testing using both SPAC and LACD increased the specificity to 94.4% and decreased the sensitivity to 87.0%.
CONCLUSION: SPAC has significantly lower specificity than LACD measurement using conventional cutoffs but interpretation of the findings can be performed by modestly trained personnel.
METHODS: This study assessed two clinical populations to compare SPAC, LACD, and gonioscopy: the Zhongshan Angle-closure Prevention Trial, from which 370 patients were eligible as closed-angle participants and the Liwan Eye Study, from which 72 patients were selected as open-angle controls. Eligible participants were assessed by SPAC, LACD, and gonioscopy.
RESULTS: Angle status was defined by gonioscopy. Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) for SPAC was 0.92 (0.89-0.95) whereas AUROC for LACD was 0.94 (0.92-0.97). Using conventional cutoff points, sensitivity/specificity was 93.0%/70.8% for SPAC and 94.1%/87.5% for LACD. Sequential testing using both SPAC and LACD increased the specificity to 94.4% and decreased the sensitivity to 87.0%.
CONCLUSION: SPAC has significantly lower specificity than LACD measurement using conventional cutoffs but interpretation of the findings can be performed by modestly trained personnel.