4.6 Article

Use of EyeCam for Imaging the Anterior Chamber Angle

期刊

INVESTIGATIVE OPHTHALMOLOGY & VISUAL SCIENCE
卷 51, 期 6, 页码 2993-2997

出版社

ASSOC RESEARCH VISION OPHTHALMOLOGY INC
DOI: 10.1167/iovs.09-4418

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Medical Research Council, Singapore
  2. Singhealth Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

PURPOSE. To compare EyeCam (Clarity Medical Systems, Pleasanton, CA) imaging with gonioscopy for detecting angle closure. METHODS. In this prospective, hospital-based study, subjects underwent gonioscopy by a single observer and EyeCam imaging by a different operator. EyeCam images were graded by two masked observers. The anterior chamber angle in a quadrant was classified as closed if the trabecular meshwork could not be seen. The eye was classified as having angle closure if two or more quadrants were closed. RESULTS. One hundred fifty-two subjects were studied. The mean age was 57.4 years (SD 12.9) and there were 82 (54%) men. Of the 152 eyes, 21 (13.8%) had angle closure. The EyeCam provided clear images of the angles in 98.8% of subjects. The agreement between the EyeCam and gonioscopy for detecting angle closure in the superior, inferior, nasal, and temporal quadrants based on agreement coefficient (AC1) statistics was 0.73, 0.75, 0.76, and 0.72, respectively. EyeCam detected more closed angles than did gonioscopy in all quadrants (P < 0.05). With gonioscopy, 21/152 (13.8%) eyes were diagnosed as angle closure compared to 41 (27.0%) of 152 with EyeCam (P < 0.001, McNemar Test), giving an overall sensitivity of 76.2% (95% confidence interval [CI], 54.9%-90.7%), specificity of 80.9% (95% CI, 73.5%-87.3%), and an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of 0.79. CONCLUSIONS. The EyeCam showed good agreement with gonioscopy for detecting angle closure. However, it detected more closed angles than did gonioscopy in all quadrants. (Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2010; 51: 2993-2997) DOI:10.1167/iovs.09-4418

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

4.6
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