4.3 Review

Single-Field Non-Mydriatic Fundus Photography for Diabetic Retinopathy Screening: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

期刊

OPHTHALMIC RESEARCH
卷 62, 期 2, 页码 61-67

出版社

KARGER
DOI: 10.1159/000499106

关键词

Non-mydriatic fundus photography; Diabetic retinopathy; Diagnostic effectiveness

资金

  1. National Key R&D Program of China [2017YFC1103704]
  2. Sanming Project of Medicine in Shenzhen [SZSM201412020]
  3. Fund for High Level Medical Discipline Construction of Shenzhen [2016031638]
  4. Shenzhen Foundation of Health and Family Planning Commission [SZXJ2017021]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: Single-field non-mydriatic fundus photography (NMFP) has been used to detect diabetic retinopathy (DR) in many studies; however, its value in a general clinical setting has not been established. Here we performed a meta-analysis to evaluate its diagnostic effectiveness. Method: We systematically searched PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases for candidate studies published through May 19, 2018. A random-effect model was used to calculate the diagnostic indicators including the sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR), diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), area under the curve (AUC), and 95% confidence intervals. Results: Ten prospective studies were ultimately included. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, PLR, NLR, and DOR were 0.68, 0.94, 11.2, 0.34 and 33, respectively. The AUC was 0.88. Subgroup analysis showed that single-field NMFP had a respective sensitivity and specificity of 0.73 and 0.91 when compared to standard 7-field mydriatic stereoscopic photography (7SF), and 0.54 and 0.98 when compared to slit-lamp biomicroscopy as reference standard. Conclusions: Single-field NMFP is inadequate to detect DR. Additionally, it showed higher sensitivity and lower specificity when 7SF was used as reference standard, as compared to slit-lamp biomicroscopy, suggesting that different reference standards used in DR screening might have affected the diagnostic results.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据