-
Acta Ophthalmologica Nov 2021To evaluate the basic characteristics of optic disc pit maculopathy (ODPM) and the efficacies of pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) treatment with different adjunctive... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
PURPOSE
To evaluate the basic characteristics of optic disc pit maculopathy (ODPM) and the efficacies of pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) treatment with different adjunctive strategies.
METHODS
The databases PubMed, EMBASE and Ovid up to April 2020 were searched to identify relevant studies. Statistical analyses were conducted with R software version 3.6.3.
RESULTS
Fifty-nine studies were eventually included for different aspects of statistical analyses. The pooling results suggest the general incidence of maculopathy in optic disc pit (ODP) is 51%, and the rate of serous macular detachment and retinoschisis is 49% and 58%, respectively. The incidence of sub-retinal fluid (SRF) only is 10%, intra-retinal retinal (IRF) fluid only is 14%, and SRF plus IRF is 69%. A lamellar macular hole (LMH) is present in 53% of cases, and 58% have communication between the macula with the pit. The incidence of posterior vitreous detachment (PVD), vitreo-papillary traction and vitreomacular traction (VMT) is 7%, 28% and 13%, respectively. Besides, the rate of complete anatomic success and visual improvement after PPV are both around 85%. Subgroup analysis reveals the anatomic, and visual success rates of PPV alone are 89% and 100%, respectively. Gas tamponade, laser or internal limiting membrane peeling (ILMP) during vitrectomy are less promising, while PPV with ILM flap stuffing could achieve better outcomes than cases without it.
CONCLUSION
Optic disc pit-associated maculopathy has different fundus characteristics. Based on the current evidence, PPV is effective for ODPM, and the combined application of gas tamponade, laser and ILMP should be used with caution.
Topics: Eye Abnormalities; Humans; Macular Degeneration; Optic Disk; Tomography, Optical Coherence; Vitrectomy
PubMed: 33421324
DOI: 10.1111/aos.14730 -
Accuracy of optical coherence tomography for diagnosing glaucoma: an overview of systematic reviews.The British Journal of Ophthalmology Apr 2021To assess the diagnostic accuracy (DTA) of optical coherence tomography (OCT) for detecting glaucoma by systematically searching and appraising systematic reviews (SRs)... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
AIMS
To assess the diagnostic accuracy (DTA) of optical coherence tomography (OCT) for detecting glaucoma by systematically searching and appraising systematic reviews (SRs) on this issue.
METHODS
We searched a database of SRs in eyes and vision maintained by the Cochrane Eyes and Vision United States on the DTA of OCT for detecting glaucoma. Two authors working independently screened the records, abstracted data and assessed the risk of bias using the Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews checklist. We extracted quantitative DTA estimates as well as qualitative statements on their relevance to practice.
RESULTS
We included four SRs published between 2015 and 2018. These SRs included between 17 and 113 studies on OCT for glaucoma diagnosis. Two reviews were at low risk of bias and the other two had two to four domains at high or unclear risk of bias with concerns on applicability. The two reliable SRs reported the accuracy of average retinal nerve fibre layer (RNFL) thickness and found a sensitivity of 0.69 (0.63 to 0.73) and 0.78 (0.74 to 0.83) and a specificity of 0.94 (0.93 to 0.95) and 0.93 (0.92 to 0.95) in 57 and 50 studies, respectively. Only one review included a clear specification of the clinical pathway. Both reviews highlighted the limitations of primary DTA studies on this topic.
CONCLUSIONS
The quality of published DTA reviews on OCT for diagnosing glaucoma was mixed. Two reliable SRs found moderate sensitivity at high specificity for average RNFL thickness in diagnosing manifest glaucoma. Our overview suggests that the methodological quality of both primary and secondary DTA research on glaucoma is in need of improvement.
Topics: Glaucoma; Humans; Intraocular Pressure; Nerve Fibers; Optic Disk; Reproducibility of Results; Tomography, Optical Coherence; Visual Fields
PubMed: 32493760
DOI: 10.1136/bjophthalmol-2020-316152 -
Acta Ophthalmologica Sep 2020A growing number of studies have reported a link between vascular damage and glaucoma based on optical coherence tomography angiography (OCTA) imaging. This multitude of...
A growing number of studies have reported a link between vascular damage and glaucoma based on optical coherence tomography angiography (OCTA) imaging. This multitude of studies focused on different regions of interest (ROIs) which offers the possibility to draw conclusions on the most discriminative locations to diagnose glaucoma. The objective of this work was to review and analyse the discriminative capacity of vascular density, retrieved from different ROIs, on differentiating healthy subjects from glaucoma patients. PubMed was used to perform a systematic review on the analysis of glaucomatous vascular damage using OCTA. All studies up to 21 April 2019 were considered. The ROIs were analysed by region (macula, optic disc and peripapillary region), layer (superficial and deep capillary plexus, avascular, whole retina, choriocapillaris and choroid) and sector (according to the Garway-Heath map). The area under receiver operator characteristic curve (AUROC) and the statistical difference (p-value) were used to report the importance of each ROI for diagnosing glaucoma. From 96 screened studies, 43 were eligible for this review. Overall, the peripapillary region showed to be the most discriminative region with the highest mean AUROC (0.80 ± 0.09). An improvement of the AUROC from this region is observed when a sectorial analysis is performed, with the highest AUROCs obtained at the inferior and superior sectors of the superficial capillary plexus in the peripapillary region (0.86 ± 0.03 and 0.87 ± 0.10, respectively). The presented work shows that glaucomatous vascular damage can be assessed using OCTA, and its added value as a complementary feature for glaucoma diagnosis depends on the region of interest. A sectorial analysis of the superficial layer at the peripapillary region is preferable for assessing glaucomatous vascular damage.
Topics: Glaucoma; Humans; Macula Lutea; Microcirculation; Optic Disk; ROC Curve; Retinal Vessels; Tomography, Optical Coherence; Visual Fields
PubMed: 32180360
DOI: 10.1111/aos.14392 -
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 -
Medical Science Monitor : International... Aug 2012Ocular ischemic syndrome is a rare condition, which is caused by ocular hypoperfusion due to stenosis or occlusion of the common or internal carotid arteries.... (Review)
Review
Ocular ischemic syndrome is a rare condition, which is caused by ocular hypoperfusion due to stenosis or occlusion of the common or internal carotid arteries. Atherosclerosis is the major cause of changes in the carotid arteries. Ocular ischemic syndrome is manifested as visual loss, orbital pain and, frequently, changes of the visual field, and various anterior and posterior segment signs. Anterior segment signs include iris neovascularization and secondary neovascular glaucoma, iridocyclitis, asymmetric cataract, iris atrophy and sluggish reaction to light. Posterior eye segment changes are the most characteristic, such as narrowed retinal arteries, perifoveal telangiectasias, dilated retinal veins, mid-peripheral retinal hemorrhages, microaneurysms, neovascularization at the optic disk and in the retina, a cherry-red spot, cotton-wool spots, vitreous hemorrhage and normal-tension glaucoma. Differential diagnosis of ocular ischemic syndrome includes diabetic retinopathy and moderate central retinal vein occlusion. Carotid artery imaging and fundus fluorescein angiography help to establish the diagnosis of ocular ischemic syndrome. The treatment can be local, for example, ocular (conservative, laser and surgical) or systemic (conservative and surgical treatment of the carotid artery). Since the condition does not affect the eyes alone, patients with ocular ischemic syndrome should be referred for consultation to the neurologist, vascular surgeon and cardiologist.
Topics: Animals; Diagnosis, Differential; Eye; Eye Diseases; Humans; Ischemia; Syndrome
PubMed: 22847215
DOI: 10.12659/msm.883260 -
Acta Ophthalmologica Mar 2012A large number of methods have been developed for assessing glaucomatous visual field progression, but their properties have not yet been systematically evaluated. In... (Review)
Review
A large number of methods have been developed for assessing glaucomatous visual field progression, but their properties have not yet been systematically evaluated. In this systematic literature review, we summarize the evidence base for selecting a method by providing answers to ten relevant questions on the variety, validity and reproducibility of methods. In total, we found 301 different methods in 412 articles. The majority of studies (54%) used the Humphrey Field Analyzer. No data have been published about the reproducibility of methods. Although there is no gold standard to assess glaucomatous visual field progression, we found evidence on validity for 48 different methods. Some methods were less capable of distinguishing between progressive and nonprogressive patients. Choosing among twelve methods is supported by some evidence of their validity. These methods still differ in sensitivity, specificity and predictive values of test results within studies comparing several methods. In conclusion, the current evidence base is not perfect. A selection should be made from a limited number of methods, according to the clinical purpose of progression assessment. Methods that quantify the rate of visual field progression seem to be the most appropriate for guiding subsequent medical actions in individual patients. Future studies should investigate whether using one method to monitor patients is superior to another method in preventing loss of quality of life.
Topics: Diagnostic Techniques, Ophthalmological; Disease Progression; Evidence-Based Medicine; False Positive Reactions; Glaucoma, Open-Angle; Humans; Optic Disk; Optic Nerve Diseases; Predictive Value of Tests; Reproducibility of Results; Sensitivity and Specificity; Validation Studies as Topic; Vision Disorders; Visual Field Tests; Visual Fields
PubMed: 21812943
DOI: 10.1111/j.1755-3768.2011.02206.x