Comparison of Ethnic-specific Databases in Heidelberg Retina Tomography-3 to Discriminate Between Early Glaucoma and Normal Chinese Eyes.

IF 0.4 Q4 OPHTHALMOLOGY

Open Ophthalmology Journal Pub Date : 2017-02-28 eCollection Date: 2017-01-01 DOI:10.2174/1874364101711010040

Xiu Ling Tan, Sae Cheong Yap, Xiang Li, Leonard W Yip

{"title":"Comparison of Ethnic-specific Databases in Heidelberg Retina Tomography-3 to Discriminate Between Early Glaucoma and Normal Chinese Eyes.","authors":"Xiu Ling Tan, Sae Cheong Yap, Xiang Li, Leonard W Yip","doi":"10.2174/1874364101711010040","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose: To compare the diagnostic accuracy of the 3 race-specific normative databases in Heidelberg Retina Tomography (HRT)-3, in differentiating between early glaucomatous and healthy normal Chinese eyes.Method: 52 healthy volunteers and 25 glaucoma patients were recruited for this prospective cross-sectional study. All underwent standardized interviews, ophthalmic examination, perimetry and HRT optic disc imaging. Area under the curve (AUC) receiver operating characteristics, sensitivity and specificity were derived to assess the discriminating abilities of the 3 normative databases, for both Moorfields Regression Analysis (MRA) and Glaucoma Probability Score (GPS).Results: A significantly higher percentage (65%) of patients were classified as \"within normal limits\" using the MRA-Indian database, as compared to the MRA-Caucasian and MRA-African-American databases. However, for GPS, this was observed using the African-American database. For MRA, the highest sensitivity was obtained with both Caucasian and African-American databases (68%), while the highest specificity was from the Indian database (94%). The AUC for discrimination between glaucomatous and normal eyes by MRA-Caucasian, MRA-African-American and MRA-Indian databases were 0.77 (95% CI, 0.67-0.88), 0.79 (0.69-0.89) and 0.73 (0.63-0.84) respectively. For GPS, the highest sensitivity was obtained using either Caucasian or Indian databases (68%). The highest specificity was seen with the African-American database (98%). The AUC for GPS-Caucasian, GPS-African-American and GPS-Indian databases were 0.76 (95% CI, 0.66-0.87), 0.77 (0.67-0.87) and 0.76 (0.66-0.87) respectively.Conclusion: Comparison of the 3 ethnic databases did not reveal significant differences to differentiate early glaucomatous from normal Chinese eyes.","PeriodicalId":46347,"journal":{"name":"Open Ophthalmology Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2017-02-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5362979/pdf/","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Open Ophthalmology Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2174/1874364101711010040","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2017/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"OPHTHALMOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 1

Abstract

Purpose: To compare the diagnostic accuracy of the 3 race-specific normative databases in Heidelberg Retina Tomography (HRT)-3, in differentiating between early glaucomatous and healthy normal Chinese eyes.

Method: 52 healthy volunteers and 25 glaucoma patients were recruited for this prospective cross-sectional study. All underwent standardized interviews, ophthalmic examination, perimetry and HRT optic disc imaging. Area under the curve (AUC) receiver operating characteristics, sensitivity and specificity were derived to assess the discriminating abilities of the 3 normative databases, for both Moorfields Regression Analysis (MRA) and Glaucoma Probability Score (GPS).

Results: A significantly higher percentage (65%) of patients were classified as "within normal limits" using the MRA-Indian database, as compared to the MRA-Caucasian and MRA-African-American databases. However, for GPS, this was observed using the African-American database. For MRA, the highest sensitivity was obtained with both Caucasian and African-American databases (68%), while the highest specificity was from the Indian database (94%). The AUC for discrimination between glaucomatous and normal eyes by MRA-Caucasian, MRA-African-American and MRA-Indian databases were 0.77 (95% CI, 0.67-0.88), 0.79 (0.69-0.89) and 0.73 (0.63-0.84) respectively. For GPS, the highest sensitivity was obtained using either Caucasian or Indian databases (68%). The highest specificity was seen with the African-American database (98%). The AUC for GPS-Caucasian, GPS-African-American and GPS-Indian databases were 0.76 (95% CI, 0.66-0.87), 0.77 (0.67-0.87) and 0.76 (0.66-0.87) respectively.

Conclusion: Comparison of the 3 ethnic databases did not reveal significant differences to differentiate early glaucomatous from normal Chinese eyes.

查看原文本刊更多论文

海德堡视网膜断层扫描-3中种族特异性数据库区分早期青光眼和正常人的比较。

目的:比较海德堡视网膜断层扫描(HRT)-3中3个种族特异性标准数据库对中国早期青光眼与健康正常眼的诊断准确性。方法:招募52名健康志愿者和25名青光眼患者进行前瞻性横断面研究。所有患者均接受标准化访谈、眼科检查、眼周检查和HRT视盘成像。推导曲线下面积(AUC)受者工作特征、敏感性和特异性，评估3个标准数据库对Moorfields回归分析(MRA)和青光眼概率评分(GPS)的判别能力。结果:与mra -高加索和mra -非裔美国人数据库相比，mra -印度数据库中被归类为“正常范围内”的患者比例明显更高(65%)。然而，对于GPS，这是使用非裔美国人数据库观察到的。对于MRA，高加索和非洲裔美国人数据库的敏感性最高(68%)，而印度数据库的特异性最高(94%)。MRA-Caucasian、mra - african和MRA-Indian数据库区分青光眼和正常眼的AUC分别为0.77 (95% CI, 0.67-0.88)、0.79(0.69-0.89)和0.73(0.63-0.84)。对于GPS，使用高加索或印度数据库获得的灵敏度最高(68%)。非裔美国人数据库的特异性最高(98%)。GPS-Caucasian、GPS-African-American和GPS-Indian数据库的AUC分别为0.76 (95% CI, 0.66-0.87)、0.77(0.67-0.87)和0.76(0.66-0.87)。结论:3个民族数据库的比较显示早期青光眼与正常人的鉴别无显著差异。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Open Ophthalmology Journal OPHTHALMOLOGY-

CiteScore

0.50

自引率

0.00%

发文量

期刊介绍： The Open Ophthalmology Journal is an Open Access online journal, which publishes research articles, reviews/mini-reviews, letters and guest edited single topic issues in all important areas of experimental and clinical research in ophthalmology, including use of ophthalmological therapies, devices and surgical techniques. The Open Ophthalmology Journal, a peer-reviewed journal, is an important and reliable source of current information on developments in the field. The emphasis will be on publishing quality papers rapidly and making them freely available to researchers worldwide.