探索将点状内脉络膜病变与多灶性脉络膜炎和泛脉络膜炎区分开来的难题。

IF 2.3 2区 医学 Q2 OPHTHALMOLOGY Retina-The Journal of Retinal and Vitreous Diseases Pub Date : 2024-07-18 DOI:10.1097/IAE.0000000000004211
Hyo Song Park, Hyun Goo Kang, Yong Joon Kim, Eun Young Choi, Junwon Lee, Suk Ho Byeon, Sung Soo Kim, Christopher Seungkyu Lee
{"title":"探索将点状内脉络膜病变与多灶性脉络膜炎和泛脉络膜炎区分开来的难题。","authors":"Hyo Song Park, Hyun Goo Kang, Yong Joon Kim, Eun Young Choi, Junwon Lee, Suk Ho Byeon, Sung Soo Kim, Christopher Seungkyu Lee","doi":"10.1097/IAE.0000000000004211","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>This retrospective case series aimed to assess the concordance between clinical diagnoses of punctate inner choroidopathy (PIC) and multifocal choroiditis and panuveitis (MCP) using the 2021 Standardization of Uveitis Nomenclature (SUN) Working Group criteria.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Using the medical records of the patients, we reevaluated 100 eyes of 75 patients with idiopathic multifocal chorioretinal inflammatory lesions based on SUN criteria and compared the result to the clinical diagnosis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 100 eyes, 29 eyes (29%) were diagnosed as PIC and 15 eyes (15%) were diagnosed as MCP using SUN criteria, and 56 (56%) eyes could not be diagnosed as either. Clinically diagnosed PIC eyes were significantly more myopic than the clinically diagnosed MCP eyes (mean spherical equivalent -6.65 ± 4.63 vs. -3.85 ± 2.31, P = 0.01). Sixteen eyes with vitreous inflammation were all clinically diagnosed as MCP, but four (25%) could not be diagnosed as MCP using SUN criteria.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The existing diagnostic criteria showed limitations in capturing all clinical cases of PIC or MCP, and adding or revising criteria on features such as vitreous inflammation or myopia, could be considered to enhance diagnostic accuracy.</p>","PeriodicalId":54486,"journal":{"name":"Retina-The Journal of Retinal and Vitreous Diseases","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Exploring the Challenges of Distinguishing Punctate Inner Choroidopathy from Multifocal Choroiditis and Panuveitis.\",\"authors\":\"Hyo Song Park, Hyun Goo Kang, Yong Joon Kim, Eun Young Choi, Junwon Lee, Suk Ho Byeon, Sung Soo Kim, Christopher Seungkyu Lee\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/IAE.0000000000004211\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>This retrospective case series aimed to assess the concordance between clinical diagnoses of punctate inner choroidopathy (PIC) and multifocal choroiditis and panuveitis (MCP) using the 2021 Standardization of Uveitis Nomenclature (SUN) Working Group criteria.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Using the medical records of the patients, we reevaluated 100 eyes of 75 patients with idiopathic multifocal chorioretinal inflammatory lesions based on SUN criteria and compared the result to the clinical diagnosis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 100 eyes, 29 eyes (29%) were diagnosed as PIC and 15 eyes (15%) were diagnosed as MCP using SUN criteria, and 56 (56%) eyes could not be diagnosed as either. Clinically diagnosed PIC eyes were significantly more myopic than the clinically diagnosed MCP eyes (mean spherical equivalent -6.65 ± 4.63 vs. -3.85 ± 2.31, P = 0.01). Sixteen eyes with vitreous inflammation were all clinically diagnosed as MCP, but four (25%) could not be diagnosed as MCP using SUN criteria.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The existing diagnostic criteria showed limitations in capturing all clinical cases of PIC or MCP, and adding or revising criteria on features such as vitreous inflammation or myopia, could be considered to enhance diagnostic accuracy.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":54486,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Retina-The Journal of Retinal and Vitreous Diseases\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Retina-The Journal of Retinal and Vitreous Diseases\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/IAE.0000000000004211\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"OPHTHALMOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Retina-The Journal of Retinal and Vitreous Diseases","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/IAE.0000000000004211","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"OPHTHALMOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:这一回顾性病例系列研究旨在根据2021年葡萄膜炎命名标准化工作组(SUN)标准,评估点状内脉络膜病变(PIC)与多灶性脉络膜炎和泛葡萄膜炎(MCP)临床诊断的一致性:利用患者的医疗记录,我们根据SUN标准重新评估了75名特发性多灶脉络膜视网膜炎症患者的100只眼睛,并将结果与临床诊断进行了比较:结果:在100只眼睛中,有29只眼睛(29%)根据SUN标准被诊断为PIC,15只眼睛(15%)被诊断为MCP,56只眼睛(56%)不能被诊断为PIC和MCP。临床诊断为 PIC 的眼睛近视度数明显高于临床诊断为 MCP 的眼睛(平均球面等值 -6.65 ± 4.63 对 -3.85 ± 2.31,P = 0.01)。16只患有玻璃体炎症的眼睛都被临床诊断为MCP,但有4只(25%)不能用SUN标准诊断为MCP:结论:现有诊断标准在捕捉所有 PIC 或 MCP 临床病例方面存在局限性,可考虑增加或修订玻璃体炎症或近视等特征的标准,以提高诊断准确性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Exploring the Challenges of Distinguishing Punctate Inner Choroidopathy from Multifocal Choroiditis and Panuveitis.

Purpose: This retrospective case series aimed to assess the concordance between clinical diagnoses of punctate inner choroidopathy (PIC) and multifocal choroiditis and panuveitis (MCP) using the 2021 Standardization of Uveitis Nomenclature (SUN) Working Group criteria.

Methods: Using the medical records of the patients, we reevaluated 100 eyes of 75 patients with idiopathic multifocal chorioretinal inflammatory lesions based on SUN criteria and compared the result to the clinical diagnosis.

Results: Of 100 eyes, 29 eyes (29%) were diagnosed as PIC and 15 eyes (15%) were diagnosed as MCP using SUN criteria, and 56 (56%) eyes could not be diagnosed as either. Clinically diagnosed PIC eyes were significantly more myopic than the clinically diagnosed MCP eyes (mean spherical equivalent -6.65 ± 4.63 vs. -3.85 ± 2.31, P = 0.01). Sixteen eyes with vitreous inflammation were all clinically diagnosed as MCP, but four (25%) could not be diagnosed as MCP using SUN criteria.

Conclusions: The existing diagnostic criteria showed limitations in capturing all clinical cases of PIC or MCP, and adding or revising criteria on features such as vitreous inflammation or myopia, could be considered to enhance diagnostic accuracy.

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
CiteScore
5.70
自引率
9.10%
发文量
554
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: ​RETINA® focuses exclusively on the growing specialty of vitreoretinal disorders. The Journal provides current information on diagnostic and therapeutic techniques. Its highly specialized and informative, peer-reviewed articles are easily applicable to clinical practice. In addition to regular reports from clinical and basic science investigators, RETINA® publishes special features including periodic review articles on pertinent topics, special articles dealing with surgical and other therapeutic techniques, and abstract cards. Issues are abundantly illustrated in vivid full color. Published 12 times per year, RETINA® is truly a “must have” publication for anyone connected to this field.
期刊最新文献
Purtscher-Like Retinopathy and Acute Macular Neuroretinopathy in a Child with Acute Influenza A. Correspondence. ACUTE POSTERIOR MULTIFOCAL PLACOID PIGMENT EPITHELIOPATHY AND PLACOID VARIANT DISEASES MASQUERADING AS AGE-RELATED MACULAR DEGENERATION IN THE ELDERLY: A Case Series. Correspondence. Reply.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1