Journal of glaucoma · 2012
Angle assessment by EyeCam, goniophotography, and gonioscopy.
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.
Baskaran Mani, Perera Shamira A, Nongpiur Monisha E, Tun Tin A, Park Judy, Kumar Rajesh S, Friedman David S, Aung Tin
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To compare EyeCam (Clarity Medical Systems, Pleasanton, CA) and goniophotography in detecting angle closure, using gonioscopy as the reference standard.
METHODS: In this hospital-based, prospective, cross-sectional study, participants underwent gonioscopy by a single observer, and EyeCam imaging and goniophotography by different operators. The anterior chamber angle in a quadrant was classified as closed if the posterior trabecular meshwork could not be seen. A masked observer categorized the eyes as per the number of closed quadrants, and an eye was classified as having angle closure if there were 2 or more quadrants of closure. Agreement between the methods was analyzed by κ statistic and comparison of area under receiver operating characteristic curves (AUC).
RESULTS: Eighty-five participants (85 eyes) were included, the majority of whom were Chinese. Angle closure was detected in 38 eyes (45%) with gonioscopy, 40 eyes (47%) using EyeCam, and 40 eyes (47%) with goniophotography (P=0.69 in both comparisons, McNemar test). The agreement for angle closure diagnosis (by eye) between gonioscopy and the 2 imaging modalities was high (κ=0.86; 95% Confidence Interval (CI), 0.75-0.97), whereas the agreement between EyeCam and goniophotography was not as good (κ=0.72; 95% CI, 0.57-0.87); largely due to lack of agreement in the nasal and temporal quadrants (κ=0.55 to 0.67). The AUC for detecting eyes with gonioscopic angle closure was similar for goniophotography and EyeCam (AUC 0.93, sensitivity=94.7%, specificity=91.5%; P>0.95).
CONCLUSIONS: EyeCam and goniophotography have similarly high sensitivity and specificity for the detection of gonioscopic angle closure.
METHODS: In this hospital-based, prospective, cross-sectional study, participants underwent gonioscopy by a single observer, and EyeCam imaging and goniophotography by different operators. The anterior chamber angle in a quadrant was classified as closed if the posterior trabecular meshwork could not be seen. A masked observer categorized the eyes as per the number of closed quadrants, and an eye was classified as having angle closure if there were 2 or more quadrants of closure. Agreement between the methods was analyzed by κ statistic and comparison of area under receiver operating characteristic curves (AUC).
RESULTS: Eighty-five participants (85 eyes) were included, the majority of whom were Chinese. Angle closure was detected in 38 eyes (45%) with gonioscopy, 40 eyes (47%) using EyeCam, and 40 eyes (47%) with goniophotography (P=0.69 in both comparisons, McNemar test). The agreement for angle closure diagnosis (by eye) between gonioscopy and the 2 imaging modalities was high (κ=0.86; 95% Confidence Interval (CI), 0.75-0.97), whereas the agreement between EyeCam and goniophotography was not as good (κ=0.72; 95% CI, 0.57-0.87); largely due to lack of agreement in the nasal and temporal quadrants (κ=0.55 to 0.67). The AUC for detecting eyes with gonioscopic angle closure was similar for goniophotography and EyeCam (AUC 0.93, sensitivity=94.7%, specificity=91.5%; P>0.95).
CONCLUSIONS: EyeCam and goniophotography have similarly high sensitivity and specificity for the detection of gonioscopic angle closure.