A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 197

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 197
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 271
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3165
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 597
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 511
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 317
Function: require_once

Myopic Retinal Changes Screening: Comparison of Sensitivity and Specificity among 15 Combinations of Ultrawide Field Scanning Laser Ophthalmoscopy Images. | LitMetric

Category Ranking

98%

Total Visits

921

Avg Visit Duration

2 minutes

Citations

20

Article Abstract

Aim: The objective of the study was to investigate the evaluation indices (diagnostic test accuracy and agreement) of 15 combinations of ultrawide field scanning laser ophthalmoscopy (UWF SLO) images in myopic retinal changes (MRC) screening to determine the combination of imaging that yields the highest evaluation indices in screening MRC.

Methods: This is a retrospective study of UWF SLO images obtained from myopes and were analyzed by 2 retinal specialists independently. Five field UWF SLO images that included the posterior (B), superior (S), inferior (I), nasal (N), and temporal (T) regions were obtained for analysis and its results used as a reference standard. The evaluation indices of different combinations comprising 1 to 4 fields of the retina were compared to determine the abilities of each combination screens for MRC.

Results: UWF SLO images obtained from 823 myopic patients (1,646 eyes) were included for the study. Sensitivities ranged from 50.0 to 98.9% (95% confidence interval (CI), 43.8-99.7%); the combinations of B + S + I (97.3%; 95% CI, 94.4-98.8%), B + T + S + I (98.5%; 95% CI, 95.9-99.5%), and B + S + N + I (98.9%; 95% CI, 96.4-99.7%) ranked highest. Furthermore, the combinations of B + S + I, B + T + S + I, and B + S + N + I also revealed the highest accuracy (97.7%; 95% CI, 95.1-100.0, 98.6; 95% CI, 96.7-100.0, 98.8; 95% CI, 96.9-100.0%) and agreement (kappa = 0.968, 0.980, and 0.980). For the various combinations, specificities were all higher than 99.5% (95% CI, 99.3-100.0%).

Conclusions: In our study, screening combinations of B + S + I, B + T + S + I, and B + S + N + I stand out with high-performing optimal evaluation indices. However, when time is limited, B + S + I may be more applicable in primary screening of MRC.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1159/000514176DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

evaluation indices
16
uwf slo
16
slo images
16
myopic retinal
8
retinal changes
8
combinations ultrawide
8
ultrawide field
8
field scanning
8
scanning laser
8
laser ophthalmoscopy
8

Similar Publications