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
98%
921
2 minutes
20
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/10.1159/000514176 | DOI Listing |