-
Ophthalmic & Physiological Optics : the... Jul 2021Evidence-based practice is fundamental to providing quality care, patient satisfaction and judicious use of limited healthcare resources. However, variability in...
PURPOSE
Evidence-based practice is fundamental to providing quality care, patient satisfaction and judicious use of limited healthcare resources. However, variability in evidence-based eye care delivery has been reported. Given the important role of optometrists in delivering primary eye care, a better understanding of the barriers and facilitators to providing optometric care is required. This systematic review aimed to identify determinants (barriers and facilitators) of eye care delivery by optometrists and interventions that may improve eye care delivery.
RECENT FINDINGS
PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, SCOPUS, PsychINFO, ProQuest and Web of Science were searched for studies reporting barriers and facilitators to eye care delivery published between 1999 and 2020. The Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) was used to analyse data (quotations, interpretive summaries, survey result) with barriers and facilitators coded to one or more of the 14 domains, and used to identify the key behavioural domains influencing eye care delivery based on frequency of coding, elaboration and stated importance in the study. Influential domains were mapped to the Behaviour Change Wheel to identify potential interventions to improve eye care delivery. Of the 802 studies retrieved from the search, 30 were included. Frequently identified barriers were time constraints, resources and equipment issues, patient factors, lack of awareness, skill proficiency deficits and negative attitudes and beliefs. Frequently identified facilitators were adequate time, resources and equipment, education, skill proficiency and understanding the relevancy of the eye care provided. The key TDF domains influencing eye care delivery were 'environmental context and resources' (time, resources, equipment issues, patient factors), 'knowledge' (awareness issues), 'skills' (skills proficiency) and 'belief about consequences' (beliefs and relevancy). Intervention functions that may improve eye care delivery were education, training, restriction, environmental restructuring, enablement, persuasion and modelling.
SUMMARY
The barriers and facilitators identified in this review were diverse and located at both the practitioner and organisational levels. Four TDF domains were found to be influential determinants of eye care practice. Intervention functions identified in this study can be used to improve the appropriateness of primary eye care delivery.
Topics: Delivery of Health Care; Humans; Optometrists; Primary Health Care; Surveys and Questionnaires
PubMed: 33774856
DOI: 10.1111/opo.12801 -
Ophthalmic & Physiological Optics : the... May 2021Spectacle non-tolerance or adverse events to spectacle wear are serious concerns for both patients and practitioners. Non-tolerance may contribute to a negative impact... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
PURPOSE
Spectacle non-tolerance or adverse events to spectacle wear are serious concerns for both patients and practitioners. Non-tolerance may contribute to a negative impact on the practitioner's ability and practice. Therefore, a detailed understanding of frequency and causes of spectacle non-tolerance in clinical ophthalmic practice is essential. This review aimed to determine the prevalence and causes of non-tolerance to spectacles prescribed and dispensed in clinical practice.
METHOD
The current systematic review included quantitative studies published in the English language that reported spectacle non-tolerance in clinical practice. A comprehensive search was conducted in PubMed, Scopus and the Web of Science database for studies published until 13 July 2020. An adapted version of the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) modified for cross-sectional studies was used to assess the quality of each included study. Five investigations with 205,478 study participants were included in the review. The prevalence of spectacle non-tolerance from individual studies was pooled using MetaXL software. The pooled prevalence of spectacle non-tolerance was 2.1% (95% CI: 1.6-2.7) ranging from 1.6% to 3.0%. The papers were also reviewed to identify the potential causes of non-tolerances. Nearly half reported that non-tolerance (47.4%) was due to an error in refraction. Other causes identified were errors related to communication (16.3%), dispensing (13.5%), non-adaptation (9.7%), data entry (8.7%), binocular vision (7.4%) and ocular pathology (6.4%).
SUMMARY
This review improves our understanding of spectacle non-tolerance in clinical practice. This is important because non-tolerance may lead to spectacle wear discontinuation, which may deprive patients of optimal vision. Increased non-tolerance in clinical practice may affect a clinician's reputation and incur additional costs associated with reassessments and replacements. Spectacle non-tolerance occurred due to a multitude of factors related to optical dispensing and wearer adaptation. Therefore, there is a need for vigilance while prescribing spectacles. The limited evidence highlights the need for more studies, especially in limited-resource settings, to improve the quality of refractive error services.
Topics: Eyeglasses; Humans; Patient Compliance; Prescriptions; Refraction, Ocular; Refractive Errors; Vision Screening; Visual Acuity
PubMed: 33751648
DOI: 10.1111/opo.12796 -
Telemedicine Journal and E-health : the... Sep 2021The objective of this systematic search and review was to investigate the role of optometrists in teleophthalmology and digital referral. We examine the implications of...
Investigating the Role of Optometrists in Teleophthalmology and the Implications of Increasing Access to Advanced Imaging Techniques and Digital Referral: A Systematic Search and Review.
The objective of this systematic search and review was to investigate the role of optometrists in teleophthalmology and digital referral. We examine the implications of the optometric communities' increasing access to advanced imaging, such as optical coherence tomography (OCT), in ophthalmic telemedicine schemes. A systematic search was conducted, using PubMed and Embase, in April of 2019. Eight hundred eight ( = 808) texts were retrieved and 99 articles were deemed eligible for full-text review. Twenty-six ( = 26) studies were included in the qualitative synthesis. All studies involved optometrists as principal service providers. Findings demonstrate that optometrist-facilitated teleophthalmology results in consistent reductions in hospital referrals and waiting times, as well as high patient satisfaction. Optometrists are identified as crucial to the success of many projects and their access to advanced imaging technology is observed to position optometry practices as the most convenient location to establish a teleophthalmology program. OCT imaging demonstrated the potential to increase diagnostic accuracy and is increasingly prevalent in optometry practice. The importance of additional training for optometrists participating in teleophthalmology schemes is highlighted, as is the need for appropriate remuneration for those involved. The role of community-based ophthalmic care in reducing demands on hospital eye services (HES) is highlighted by our results, demonstrating that optometrist-facilitated teleophthalmology can dramatically reduce referrals and streamline care. In addition, the increasing prevalence of OCT in optometric practice represents an underutilized resource for HES.
Topics: Humans; Ophthalmology; Optometrists; Optometry; Referral and Consultation; Telemedicine
PubMed: 33275866
DOI: 10.1089/tmj.2020.0284 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2020Specific diagnostic tests to detect severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and resulting COVID-19 disease are not always available and take time to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Specific diagnostic tests to detect severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and resulting COVID-19 disease are not always available and take time to obtain results. Routine laboratory markers such as white blood cell count, measures of anticoagulation, C-reactive protein (CRP) and procalcitonin, are used to assess the clinical status of a patient. These laboratory tests may be useful for the triage of people with potential COVID-19 to prioritize them for different levels of treatment, especially in situations where time and resources are limited.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the diagnostic accuracy of routine laboratory testing as a triage test to determine if a person has COVID-19.
SEARCH METHODS
On 4 May 2020 we undertook electronic searches in the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register and the COVID-19 Living Evidence Database from the University of Bern, which is updated daily with published articles from PubMed and Embase and with preprints from medRxiv and bioRxiv. In addition, we checked repositories of COVID-19 publications. We did not apply any language restrictions.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included both case-control designs and consecutive series of patients that assessed the diagnostic accuracy of routine laboratory testing as a triage test to determine if a person has COVID-19. The reference standard could be reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) alone; RT-PCR plus clinical expertise or and imaging; repeated RT-PCR several days apart or from different samples; WHO and other case definitions; and any other reference standard used by the study authors.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently extracted data from each included study. They also assessed the methodological quality of the studies, using QUADAS-2. We used the 'NLMIXED' procedure in SAS 9.4 for the hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic (HSROC) meta-analyses of tests for which we included four or more studies. To facilitate interpretation of results, for each meta-analysis we estimated summary sensitivity at the points on the SROC curve that corresponded to the median and interquartile range boundaries of specificities in the included studies.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 21 studies in this review, including 14,126 COVID-19 patients and 56,585 non-COVID-19 patients in total. Studies evaluated a total of 67 different laboratory tests. Although we were interested in the diagnotic accuracy of routine tests for COVID-19, the included studies used detection of SARS-CoV-2 infection through RT-PCR as reference standard. There was considerable heterogeneity between tests, threshold values and the settings in which they were applied. For some tests a positive result was defined as a decrease compared to normal vaues, for other tests a positive result was defined as an increase, and for some tests both increase and decrease may have indicated test positivity. None of the studies had either low risk of bias on all domains or low concerns for applicability for all domains. Only three of the tests evaluated had a summary sensitivity and specificity over 50%. These were: increase in interleukin-6, increase in C-reactive protein and lymphocyte count decrease. Blood count Eleven studies evaluated a decrease in white blood cell count, with a median specificity of 93% and a summary sensitivity of 25% (95% CI 8.0% to 27%; very low-certainty evidence). The 15 studies that evaluated an increase in white blood cell count had a lower median specificity and a lower corresponding sensitivity. Four studies evaluated a decrease in neutrophil count. Their median specificity was 93%, corresponding to a summary sensitivity of 10% (95% CI 1.0% to 56%; low-certainty evidence). The 11 studies that evaluated an increase in neutrophil count had a lower median specificity and a lower corresponding sensitivity. The summary sensitivity of an increase in neutrophil percentage (4 studies) was 59% (95% CI 1.0% to 100%) at median specificity (38%; very low-certainty evidence). The summary sensitivity of an increase in monocyte count (4 studies) was 13% (95% CI 6.0% to 26%) at median specificity (73%; very low-certainty evidence). The summary sensitivity of a decrease in lymphocyte count (13 studies) was 64% (95% CI 28% to 89%) at median specificity (53%; low-certainty evidence). Four studies that evaluated a decrease in lymphocyte percentage showed a lower median specificity and lower corresponding sensitivity. The summary sensitivity of a decrease in platelets (4 studies) was 19% (95% CI 10% to 32%) at median specificity (88%; low-certainty evidence). Liver function tests The summary sensitivity of an increase in alanine aminotransferase (9 studies) was 12% (95% CI 3% to 34%) at median specificity (92%; low-certainty evidence). The summary sensitivity of an increase in aspartate aminotransferase (7 studies) was 29% (95% CI 17% to 45%) at median specificity (81%) (low-certainty evidence). The summary sensitivity of a decrease in albumin (4 studies) was 21% (95% CI 3% to 67%) at median specificity (66%; low-certainty evidence). The summary sensitivity of an increase in total bilirubin (4 studies) was 12% (95% CI 3.0% to 34%) at median specificity (92%; very low-certainty evidence). Markers of inflammation The summary sensitivity of an increase in CRP (14 studies) was 66% (95% CI 55% to 75%) at median specificity (44%; very low-certainty evidence). The summary sensitivity of an increase in procalcitonin (6 studies) was 3% (95% CI 1% to 19%) at median specificity (86%; very low-certainty evidence). The summary sensitivity of an increase in IL-6 (four studies) was 73% (95% CI 36% to 93%) at median specificity (58%) (very low-certainty evidence). Other biomarkers The summary sensitivity of an increase in creatine kinase (5 studies) was 11% (95% CI 6% to 19%) at median specificity (94%) (low-certainty evidence). The summary sensitivity of an increase in serum creatinine (four studies) was 7% (95% CI 1% to 37%) at median specificity (91%; low-certainty evidence). The summary sensitivity of an increase in lactate dehydrogenase (4 studies) was 25% (95% CI 15% to 38%) at median specificity (72%; very low-certainty evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Although these tests give an indication about the general health status of patients and some tests may be specific indicators for inflammatory processes, none of the tests we investigated are useful for accurately ruling in or ruling out COVID-19 on their own. Studies were done in specific hospitalized populations, and future studies should consider non-hospital settings to evaluate how these tests would perform in people with milder symptoms.
Topics: Bias; Biomarkers; C-Reactive Protein; COVID-19; COVID-19 Testing; Creatine Kinase; Creatinine; Diagnostic Tests, Routine; Humans; Interleukin-6; L-Lactate Dehydrogenase; Leukocyte Count; Liver Function Tests; Lymphocyte Count; Pandemics; Platelet Count; ROC Curve; Reference Values; Reverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain Reaction; SARS-CoV-2; Sensitivity and Specificity; Triage
PubMed: 33211319
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013787 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2020Primary angle closure glaucoma (PACG) accounts for 50% of glaucoma blindness worldwide. More than three-quarters of individuals with PACG reside in Asia. In these... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Primary angle closure glaucoma (PACG) accounts for 50% of glaucoma blindness worldwide. More than three-quarters of individuals with PACG reside in Asia. In these populations, PACG often develops insidiously leading to chronically raised intraocular pressure and optic nerve damage, which is often asymptomatic. Non-contact tests to identify people at risk of angle closure are relatively quick and can be carried out by appropriately trained healthcare professionals or technicians as a triage test. If the test is positive, the person will be referred for further specialist assessment.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the diagnostic accuracy of non-contact tests (limbal anterior chamber depth (LACD) (van Herick test); oblique flashlight test; scanning peripheral anterior chamber depth analyser (SPAC), Scheimpflug photography; anterior segment optical coherence tomography (AS-OCT), for identifying people with an occludable angle.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following bibliographic databases 3 October 2019: CENTRAL; MEDLINE; Embase; BIOSIS; OpenGrey; ARIF and clinical trials registries. The searches were limited to remove case reports. There were no date or language restrictions in the searches.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included prospective and retrospective cross-sectional, cohort and case-control studies conducted in any setting that evaluated the accuracy of one or more index tests for identifying people with an occludable angle compared to a gonioscopic reference standard.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently performed data extraction and quality assessment using QUADAS2 for each study. For each test, 2 x 2 tables were constructed and sensitivity and specificity were calculated. When four or more studies provided data at fixed thresholds for each test, we fitted a bivariate model using the METADAS macro in SAS to calculate pooled point estimates for sensitivity and specificity. For comparisons between index tests and subgroups, we performed a likelihood ratio test comparing the model with and without the covariate.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 47 studies involving 26,151 participants and analysing data from 23,440. Most studies were conducted in Asia (36, 76.6%). Twenty-seven studies assessed AS-OCT (analysing 15,580 participants), 17 studies LACD (7385 participants), nine studies Scheimpflug photography (1616 participants), six studies SPAC (5239 participants) and five studies evaluated the oblique flashlight test (998 participants). Regarding study quality, 36 of the included studies (76.6%) were judged to have a high risk of bias in at least one domain.The use of a case-control design (13 studies) or inappropriate exclusions (6 studies) raised patient selection concerns in 40.4% of studies and concerns in the index test domain in 59.6% of studies were due to lack of masking or post-hoc determination of optimal thresholds. Among studies that did not use a case-control design, 16 studies (20,599 participants) were conducted in a primary care/community setting and 18 studies (2590 participants) in secondary care settings, of which 15 investigated LACD. Summary estimates were calculated for commonly reported parameters and thresholds for each test; LACD ≤ 25% (16 studies, 7540 eyes): sensitivity 0.83 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.74, 0.90), specificity 0.88 (95% CI 0.84, 0.92) (moderate-certainty); flashlight (grade1) (5 studies, 1188 eyes): sensitivity 0.51 (95% CI 0.25, 0.76), specificity 0.92 (95% CI 0.70, 0.98) (low-certainty); SPAC (≤ 5 and/or S or P) (4 studies, 4677 eyes): sensitivity 0.83 (95% CI 0.70, 0.91), specificity 0.78 (95% CI 0.70, 0.83) (moderate-certainty); Scheimpflug photography (central ACD) (9 studies, 1698 eyes): sensitivity 0.92 (95% CI 0.84, 0.96), specificity 0.86 (95% CI 0.76, 0.93) (moderate-certainty); AS-OCT (subjective opinion of occludability) (13 studies, 9242 eyes): sensitivity 0.85 (95% CI 0.76, 0.91); specificity 0.71 (95% CI 0.62, 0.78) (moderate-certainty). For comparisons of sensitivity and specificity between index tests we used LACD (≤ 25%) as the reference category. The flashlight test (grade 1 threshold) showed a statistically significant lower sensitivity than LACD (≤ 25%), whereas AS-OCT (subjective judgement) had a statistically significant lower specificity. There were no statistically significant differences for the other index test comparisons. A subgroup analysis was conducted for LACD (≤ 25%), comparing community (7 studies, 14.4% prevalence) vs secondary care (7 studies, 42% prevalence) settings. We found no evidence of a statistically significant difference in test performance according to setting. Performing LACD on 1000 people at risk of angle closure with a prevalence of occludable angles of 10%, LACD would miss about 17 cases out of the 100 with occludable angles and incorrectly classify 108 out of 900 without angle closure.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The finding that LACD performed as well as index tests that use sophisticated imaging technologies, confirms the potential for this test for case-detection of occludable angles in high-risk populations. However, methodological issues across studies may have led to our estimates of test accuracy being higher than would be expected in standard clinical practice. There is still a need for high-quality studies to evaluate the performance of non-invasive tests for angle assessment in both community-based and secondary care settings.
Topics: Anterior Chamber; Bias; Case-Control Studies; Confidence Intervals; Diagnostic Techniques, Ophthalmological; Glaucoma, Angle-Closure; Gonioscopy; Humans; Patient Selection; Photography; Prospective Studies; Reference Standards; Retrospective Studies; Sensitivity and Specificity; Tomography, Optical Coherence; Triage
PubMed: 32468576
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012947.pub2 -
Optometry and Vision Science : Official... Nov 2019Cognitive biases, systematic errors in thinking that impact a person's choices and judgments, can influence decision making at various points during patient care...
SIGNIFICANCE
Cognitive biases, systematic errors in thinking that impact a person's choices and judgments, can influence decision making at various points during patient care provision. These biases can potentially result in misdiagnoses, delayed clinical care, and/or patient mismanagement. A range of interventions exists to mitigate cognitive biases. There is a need to understand the relative efficacy of these interventions within the context of eye care practice.
PURPOSE
The aim of this systematic review was to synthesize the evidence relating to interventions for mitigating cognitive biases associated with clinical decision making by eye care professionals.
DATA SOURCES
Electronic databases (including Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, PsycINFO) were searched from inception to October 2017 for studies investigating interventions intended to mitigate cognitive biases in the clinical decision making of eye care professionals. This review was undertaken in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses reporting guidelines.
STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
To ensure inclusion of all relevant literature, a wide range of study designs was eligible for inclusion, such as randomized controlled trials, nonrandomized trials, interrupted time series and repeated measures, controlled before-after studies, and qualitative studies that were a component of any of these quantitative study designs.
STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS
Two review authors independently screened titles, abstracts, and full-text articles in duplicate, applying a priori eligibility criteria.
RESULTS
After screening 2759 nonduplicate records, including full-text screening of 201 articles, no relevant studies were identified.
CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS OF FINDINGS
Given that cognitive biases can significantly impact the accuracy of clinical decision making and thus can have major effects on clinical care and patient health outcomes, the lack of studies identified in this systematic review indicates a critical need for research within the area of cognitive bias mitigation for decision making within eye care practice.
Topics: Bias; Cognition; Databases, Factual; Decision Making; Delivery of Health Care; Health Personnel; Humans; Optometrists; Qualitative Research
PubMed: 31664015
DOI: 10.1097/OPX.0000000000001445 -
Indian Journal of Ophthalmology Feb 2019Children with special needs form a unique subset with regards to visual function and examination techniques needed to assess them. With more awareness among the general...
Children with special needs form a unique subset with regards to visual function and examination techniques needed to assess them. With more awareness among the general public, neurologists, and pediatricians, these children are referred for assessment to the ophthalmologist or optometrist and sometimes even to the rehabilitation professional at an early age. This clinical practice guideline and review gives a systematic approach for examining the visual functions of a child with special needs. It outlines the procedures to be followed with equipment needed in clinical practice. Functional vision assessment guidelines are also included. This is the first part in a two-part series, with the first part presenting clinical examination guidelines and the second presenting intervention and vision enhancement techniques.
Topics: Child; Developmental Disabilities; Diagnostic Techniques, Ophthalmological; Disease Management; Humans; Vision Disorders; Vision Screening; Visual Acuity
PubMed: 30672469
DOI: 10.4103/ijo.IJO_524_18 -
Current Diabetes Reports Sep 2016Diabetes is a chronic disease that affects over 25 million adults, many of whom are smokers. The negative health impact of diabetes and comorbid smoking is significant... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Diabetes is a chronic disease that affects over 25 million adults, many of whom are smokers. The negative health impact of diabetes and comorbid smoking is significant and requires comprehensive interdisciplinary management. The National Diabetes Education Program has identified specific providers, known as PPOD, who include pharmacists, podiatrists, optometrists, and dentists, as key individuals to improve diabetes-related clinical outcomes. These providers are encouraged to work together through interdisciplinary collaboration and to implement evidence-based strategies as outlined in the PPOD toolkit. The toolkit encourages healthcare providers to ask, advise, and assist patients in their efforts to engage in risk reduction and healthy behaviors, including smoking cessation as an important risk factor. While individual PPOD providers have demonstrated effective smoking cessation interventions in adults with other acute and chronic systemic diseases, they lack specific application and focus on adults with diabetes. This literature review examines the current role of PPOD providers in smoking cessation interventions delivered to adults with diabetes.
Topics: Adult; Delivery of Health Care; Diabetes Mellitus; Humans; Primary Health Care; Research Design; Smoking Cessation; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 27424070
DOI: 10.1007/s11892-016-0777-8 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2015The diagnosis of glaucoma is traditionally based on the finding of optic nerve head (ONH) damage assessed subjectively by ophthalmoscopy or photography or by... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The diagnosis of glaucoma is traditionally based on the finding of optic nerve head (ONH) damage assessed subjectively by ophthalmoscopy or photography or by corresponding damage to the visual field assessed by automated perimetry, or both. Diagnostic assessments are usually required when ophthalmologists or primary eye care professionals find elevated intraocular pressure (IOP) or a suspect appearance of the ONH. Imaging tests such as confocal scanning laser ophthalmoscopy (HRT), optical coherence tomography (OCT) and scanning laser polarimetry (SLP, as used by the GDx instrument), provide an objective measure of the structural changes of retinal nerve fibre layer (RNFL) thickness and ONH parameters occurring in glaucoma.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the diagnostic accuracy of HRT, OCT and GDx for diagnosing manifest glaucoma by detecting ONH and RNFL damage.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched several databases for this review. The most recent searches were on 19 February 2015.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included prospective and retrospective cohort studies and case-control studies that evaluated the accuracy of OCT, HRT or the GDx for diagnosing glaucoma. We excluded population-based screening studies, since we planned to consider studies on self-referred people or participants in whom a risk factor for glaucoma had already been identified in primary care, such as elevated IOP or a family history of glaucoma. We only considered recent commercial versions of the tests: spectral domain OCT, HRT III and GDx VCC or ECC.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We adopted standard Cochrane methods. We fitted a hierarchical summary ROC (HSROC) model using the METADAS macro in SAS software. After studies were selected, we decided to use 2 x 2 data at 0.95 specificity or closer in meta-analyses, since this was the most commonly-reported level.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 106 studies in this review, which analysed 16,260 eyes (8353 cases, 7907 controls) in total. Forty studies (5574 participants) assessed GDx, 18 studies (3550 participants) HRT, and 63 (9390 participants) OCT, with 12 of these studies comparing two or three tests. Regarding study quality, a case-control design in 103 studies raised concerns as it can overestimate accuracy and reduce the applicability of the results to daily practice. Twenty-four studies were sponsored by the manufacturer, and in 15 the potential conflict of interest was unclear.Comparisons made within each test were more reliable than those between tests, as they were mostly based on direct comparisons within each study.The Nerve Fibre Indicator yielded the highest accuracy (estimate, 95% confidence interval (CI)) among GDx parameters (sensitivity: 0.67, 0.55 to 0.77; specificity: 0.94, 0.92 to 0.95). For HRT measures, the Vertical Cup/Disc (C/D) ratio (sensitivity: 0.72, 0.60 to 0.68; specificity: 0.94, 0.92 to 0.95) was no different from other parameters. With OCT, the accuracy of average RNFL retinal thickness was similar to the inferior sector (0.72, 0.65 to 0.77; specificity: 0.93, 0.92 to 0.95) and, in different studies, to the vertical C/D ratio.Comparing the parameters with the highest diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) for each device in a single HSROC model, the performance of GDx, HRT and OCT was remarkably similar. At a sensitivity of 0.70 and a high specificity close to 0.95 as in most of these studies, in 1000 people referred by primary eye care, of whom 200 have manifest glaucoma, such as in those who have already undergone some functional or anatomic testing by optometrists, the best measures of GDx, HRT and OCT would miss about 60 cases out of the 200 patients with glaucoma, and would incorrectly refer 50 out of 800 patients without glaucoma. If prevalence were 5%, e.g. such as in people referred only because of family history of glaucoma, the corresponding figures would be 15 patients missed out of 50 with manifest glaucoma, avoiding referral of about 890 out of 950 non-glaucomatous people.Heterogeneity investigations found that sensitivity estimate was higher for studies with more severe glaucoma, expressed as worse average mean deviation (MD): 0.79 (0.74 to 0.83) for MD < -6 db versus 0.64 (0.60 to 0.69) for MD ≥ -6 db, at a similar summary specificity (0.93, 95% CI 0.92 to 0.94 and, respectively, 0.94; 95% CI 0.93 to 0.95; P < 0.0001 for the difference in relative DOR).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The accuracy of imaging tests for detecting manifest glaucoma was variable across studies, but overall similar for different devices. Accuracy may have been overestimated due to the case-control design, which is a serious limitation of the current evidence base.We recommend that further diagnostic accuracy studies are carried out on patients selected consecutively at a defined step of the clinical pathway, providing a description of risk factors leading to referral and bearing in mind the consequences of false positives and false negatives in the setting in which the diagnostic question is made. Future research should report accuracy for each threshold of these continuous measures, or publish raw data.
Topics: Diagnostic Errors; Glaucoma; Humans; Nerve Fibers; Odds Ratio; Ophthalmoscopy; Optic Disk; Prospective Studies; Retrospective Studies; Scanning Laser Polarimetry; Sensitivity and Specificity; Tomography, Optical Coherence; Visual Field Tests
PubMed: 26618332
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008803.pub2