评估用于黄斑疾病筛查的数字 Amsler 网格 (PocDoc):与传统方法的对比分析

IF 2.6 3区 医学 Q2 OPHTHALMOLOGY
Ophthalmology and Therapy Pub Date : 2024-05-01 Epub Date: 2024-03-20 DOI:10.1007/s40123-024-00910-5
Joewee Boon, William Rojas-Carabali, Yusra Asad, Jonathan Tzien Yih Lim, Rajesh Rajagopalan, Rupesh Agrawal
{"title":"评估用于黄斑疾病筛查的数字 Amsler 网格 (PocDoc):与传统方法的对比分析","authors":"Joewee Boon, William Rojas-Carabali, Yusra Asad, Jonathan Tzien Yih Lim, Rajesh Rajagopalan, Rupesh Agrawal","doi":"10.1007/s40123-024-00910-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Macular diseases are major contributors to visual impairment and blindness worldwide. This study introduces PocDoc, a digital version of the conventional Amsler grid, aimed at enhancing the screening and monitoring of macular diseases. We conducted a comprehensive evaluation to compare the effectiveness of PocDoc against the conventional method.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Our comparative analysis involved two distinct phases. Initially, we assessed the capability of both PocDoc and the conventional method in detecting central visual field abnormalities. This phase included a cohort of 72 healthy and 155 eyes affected by various conditions such as age-related macular degeneration (AMD), uveitis, polypoidal choroidal vasculopathy (PCV), and macular telangiectasia. We primarily focused on the area of compromise and observed the correlation between the results obtained from both methods, measuring their concordance using a correlation coefficient. In the second phase, we evaluated the accuracy of both methods in diagnosing AMD. This involved a group of 127 eyes, including 70 healthy and 57 AMD-affected eyes. We determined the sensitivity, specificity, and overall accuracy of each method in diagnosing AMD.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In the initial phase, both PocDoc and the conventional Amsler grid demonstrated a high correlation in detecting central visual field defects across various macular diseases (correlation coefficient > 0.9). In the second phase, focused on AMD diagnosis, PocDoc showed a sensitivity of 50%, specificity of 100%, and an overall accuracy of 78%. Comparatively, the conventional method exhibited a sensitivity of 49%, specificity of 100%, and accuracy of 77%.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>PocDoc's digital Amsler grid exhibits comparable effectiveness to the conventional method in both detecting visual field abnormalities across a range of macular diseases and specifically in the diagnosis of AMD. The high correlation in results, combined with the digital advantages of PocDoc, such as ease of use and potential for telemedicine applications, suggests its viability as a valuable tool in the screening and monitoring of macular diseases.</p>","PeriodicalId":19623,"journal":{"name":"Ophthalmology and Therapy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11039616/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluation of a Digital Amsler Grid (PocDoc) for Macular Disease Screening: A Comparative Analysis with the Conventional Method.\",\"authors\":\"Joewee Boon, William Rojas-Carabali, Yusra Asad, Jonathan Tzien Yih Lim, Rajesh Rajagopalan, Rupesh Agrawal\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s40123-024-00910-5\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Macular diseases are major contributors to visual impairment and blindness worldwide. This study introduces PocDoc, a digital version of the conventional Amsler grid, aimed at enhancing the screening and monitoring of macular diseases. We conducted a comprehensive evaluation to compare the effectiveness of PocDoc against the conventional method.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Our comparative analysis involved two distinct phases. Initially, we assessed the capability of both PocDoc and the conventional method in detecting central visual field abnormalities. This phase included a cohort of 72 healthy and 155 eyes affected by various conditions such as age-related macular degeneration (AMD), uveitis, polypoidal choroidal vasculopathy (PCV), and macular telangiectasia. We primarily focused on the area of compromise and observed the correlation between the results obtained from both methods, measuring their concordance using a correlation coefficient. In the second phase, we evaluated the accuracy of both methods in diagnosing AMD. This involved a group of 127 eyes, including 70 healthy and 57 AMD-affected eyes. We determined the sensitivity, specificity, and overall accuracy of each method in diagnosing AMD.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In the initial phase, both PocDoc and the conventional Amsler grid demonstrated a high correlation in detecting central visual field defects across various macular diseases (correlation coefficient > 0.9). In the second phase, focused on AMD diagnosis, PocDoc showed a sensitivity of 50%, specificity of 100%, and an overall accuracy of 78%. Comparatively, the conventional method exhibited a sensitivity of 49%, specificity of 100%, and accuracy of 77%.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>PocDoc's digital Amsler grid exhibits comparable effectiveness to the conventional method in both detecting visual field abnormalities across a range of macular diseases and specifically in the diagnosis of AMD. The high correlation in results, combined with the digital advantages of PocDoc, such as ease of use and potential for telemedicine applications, suggests its viability as a valuable tool in the screening and monitoring of macular diseases.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":19623,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Ophthalmology and Therapy\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11039616/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Ophthalmology and Therapy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40123-024-00910-5\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/3/20 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"OPHTHALMOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ophthalmology and Therapy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40123-024-00910-5","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/3/20 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"OPHTHALMOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

导言:黄斑疾病是导致全球视力损伤和失明的主要原因。本研究介绍了传统阿姆斯勒网格的数字版 PocDoc,旨在加强黄斑疾病的筛查和监测。我们进行了一项综合评估,以比较 PocDoc 与传统方法的有效性:我们的比较分析分为两个不同的阶段。首先,我们评估了 PocDoc 和传统方法在检测中心视野异常方面的能力。这一阶段包括 72 只健康眼睛和 155 只受各种疾病(如老年性黄斑变性(AMD)、葡萄膜炎、多形性脉络膜血管病(PCV)和黄斑毛细血管扩张症)影响的眼睛。我们主要关注受损区域,并观察两种方法得出的结果之间的相关性,使用相关系数测量它们的一致性。在第二阶段,我们评估了这两种方法诊断老年黄斑变性的准确性。这涉及一组 127 只眼睛,其中包括 70 只健康眼睛和 57 只受 AMD 影响的眼睛。我们确定了每种方法诊断 AMD 的灵敏度、特异性和总体准确性:在第一阶段,PocDoc 和传统的 Amsler 网格在检测各种黄斑疾病的中心视野缺损方面都表现出很高的相关性(相关系数大于 0.9)。第二阶段的重点是黄斑病变的诊断,PocDoc 的灵敏度为 50%,特异性为 100%,总体准确率为 78%。相比之下,传统方法的灵敏度为 49%,特异性为 100%,准确率为 77%:结论:PocDoc 的数字 Amsler 网格在检测一系列黄斑疾病的视野异常方面,特别是在诊断老年性黄斑变性方面,显示出与传统方法相当的有效性。结果的高度相关性,加上 PocDoc 的数字化优势(如易于使用和远程医疗应用潜力),表明它是筛查和监测黄斑疾病的重要工具。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Evaluation of a Digital Amsler Grid (PocDoc) for Macular Disease Screening: A Comparative Analysis with the Conventional Method.

Evaluation of a Digital Amsler Grid (PocDoc) for Macular Disease Screening: A Comparative Analysis with the Conventional Method.

Introduction: Macular diseases are major contributors to visual impairment and blindness worldwide. This study introduces PocDoc, a digital version of the conventional Amsler grid, aimed at enhancing the screening and monitoring of macular diseases. We conducted a comprehensive evaluation to compare the effectiveness of PocDoc against the conventional method.

Methods: Our comparative analysis involved two distinct phases. Initially, we assessed the capability of both PocDoc and the conventional method in detecting central visual field abnormalities. This phase included a cohort of 72 healthy and 155 eyes affected by various conditions such as age-related macular degeneration (AMD), uveitis, polypoidal choroidal vasculopathy (PCV), and macular telangiectasia. We primarily focused on the area of compromise and observed the correlation between the results obtained from both methods, measuring their concordance using a correlation coefficient. In the second phase, we evaluated the accuracy of both methods in diagnosing AMD. This involved a group of 127 eyes, including 70 healthy and 57 AMD-affected eyes. We determined the sensitivity, specificity, and overall accuracy of each method in diagnosing AMD.

Results: In the initial phase, both PocDoc and the conventional Amsler grid demonstrated a high correlation in detecting central visual field defects across various macular diseases (correlation coefficient > 0.9). In the second phase, focused on AMD diagnosis, PocDoc showed a sensitivity of 50%, specificity of 100%, and an overall accuracy of 78%. Comparatively, the conventional method exhibited a sensitivity of 49%, specificity of 100%, and accuracy of 77%.

Conclusion: PocDoc's digital Amsler grid exhibits comparable effectiveness to the conventional method in both detecting visual field abnormalities across a range of macular diseases and specifically in the diagnosis of AMD. The high correlation in results, combined with the digital advantages of PocDoc, such as ease of use and potential for telemedicine applications, suggests its viability as a valuable tool in the screening and monitoring of macular diseases.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Ophthalmology and Therapy
Ophthalmology and Therapy OPHTHALMOLOGY-
CiteScore
4.20
自引率
3.00%
发文量
157
审稿时长
6 weeks
期刊介绍: Aims and Scope Ophthalmology and Therapy is an international, open access, peer-reviewed (single-blind), and rapid publication journal. The scope of the journal is broad and will consider all scientifically sound research from preclinical, clinical (all phases), observational, real-world, and health outcomes research around the use of ophthalmological therapies, devices, and surgical techniques. The journal is of interest to a broad audience of pharmaceutical and healthcare professionals and publishes original research, reviews, case reports/series, trial protocols and short communications such as commentaries and editorials. Ophthalmology and Therapy will consider all scientifically sound research be it positive, confirmatory or negative data. Submissions are welcomed whether they relate to an international and/or a country-specific audience, something that is crucially important when researchers are trying to target more specific patient populations. This inclusive approach allows the journal to assist in the dissemination of quality research, which may be considered of insufficient interest by other journals. Rapid Publication The journal’s publication timelines aim for a rapid peer review of 2 weeks. If an article is accepted it will be published 3–4 weeks from acceptance. The rapid timelines are achieved through the combination of a dedicated in-house editorial team, who manage article workflow, and an extensive Editorial and Advisory Board who assist with peer review. This allows the journal to support the rapid dissemination of research, whilst still providing robust peer review. Combined with the journal’s open access model this allows for the rapid, efficient communication of the latest research and reviews, fostering the advancement of ophthalmic therapies. Open Access All articles published by Ophthalmology and Therapy are open access. Personal Service The journal’s dedicated in-house editorial team offer a personal “concierge service” meaning authors will always have an editorial contact able to update them on the status of their manuscript. The editorial team check all manuscripts to ensure that articles conform to the most recent COPE, GPP and ICMJE publishing guidelines. This supports the publication of ethically sound and transparent research. Digital Features and Plain Language Summaries Ophthalmology and Therapy offers a range of additional features designed to increase the visibility, readership and educational value of the journal’s content. Each article is accompanied by key summary points, giving a time-efficient overview of the content to a wide readership. Articles may be accompanied by plain language summaries to assist readers who have some knowledge of, but not in-depth expertise in, the area to understand the scientific content and overall implications of the article. The journal also provides the option to include various types of digital features including animated abstracts, video abstracts, slide decks, audio slides, instructional videos, infographics, podcasts and animations. All additional features are peer reviewed to the same high standard as the article itself. If you consider that your paper would benefit from the inclusion of a digital feature, please let us know. Our editorial team are able to create high-quality slide decks and infographics in-house, and video abstracts through our partner Research Square, and would be happy to assist in any way we can. For further information about digital features, please contact the journal editor (see ‘Contact the Journal’ for email address), and see the ‘Guidelines for digital features and plain language summaries’ document under ‘Submission guidelines’. For examples of digital features please visit our showcase page https://springerhealthcare.com/expertise/publishing-digital-features/ Publication Fees Upon acceptance of an article, authors will be required to pay the mandatory Rapid Service Fee of €5250/$6000/£4300. The journal will consider fee discounts and waivers for developing countries and this is decided on a case by case basis. Peer Review Process Upon submission, manuscripts are assessed by the editorial team to ensure they fit within the aims and scope of the journal and are also checked for plagiarism. All suitable submissions are then subject to a comprehensive single-blind peer review. Reviewers are selected based on their relevant expertise and publication history in the subject area. The journal has an extensive pool of editorial and advisory board members who have been selected to assist with peer review based on the afore-mentioned criteria. At least two extensive reviews are required to make the editorial decision, with the exception of some article types such as Commentaries, Editorials, and Letters which are generally reviewed by one member of the Editorial Board. Where reviewer recommendations are conflicted, the editorial board will be contacted for further advice and a presiding decision. Manuscripts are then either accepted, rejected or authors are required to make major or minor revisions (both reviewer comments and editorial comments may need to be addressed). Once a revised manuscript is re-submitted, it is assessed along with the responses to reviewer comments and if it has been adequately revised it will be accepted for publication. Accepted manuscripts are then copyedited and typeset by the production team before online publication. Appeals against decisions following peer review are considered on a case-by-case basis and should be sent to the journal editor. Preprints We encourage posting of preprints of primary research manuscripts on preprint servers, authors’ or institutional websites, and open communications between researchers whether on community preprint servers or preprint commenting platforms. Posting of preprints is not considered prior publication and will not jeopardize consideration in our journals. Authors should disclose details of preprint posting during the submission process or at any other point during consideration in one of our journals. Once the manuscript is published, it is the author’s responsibility to ensure that the preprint record is updated with a publication reference, including the DOI and a URL link to the published version of the article on the journal website. Please follow the link for further information on preprint sharing: https://www.springer.com/gp/authors-editors/journal-author/journal-author-helpdesk/submission/1302#c16721550 Copyright Ophthalmology and Therapy''s content is published open access under the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial License, which allows users to read, copy, distribute, and make derivative works for non-commercial purposes from the material, as long as the author of the original work is cited. The author assigns the exclusive right to any commercial use of the article to Springer. For more information about the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial License, click here: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0. Contact For more information about the journal, including pre-submission enquiries, please contact christopher.vautrinot@springer.com.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信