便携式非眼底照相机在 "排除乳头水肿 "咨询中的功效:前瞻性研究。

IF 1.4 4区 医学 Q3 OPHTHALMOLOGY European Journal of Ophthalmology Pub Date : 2024-10-18 DOI:10.1177/11206721241292105
Paras P Shah, Samuel M Gelnick, Daniel Zhu, Jules A Winokur, Prachi Dua, Howard D Pomeranz, Thomas Perera, Matthew G Gorski
{"title":"便携式非眼底照相机在 \"排除乳头水肿 \"咨询中的功效:前瞻性研究。","authors":"Paras P Shah, Samuel M Gelnick, Daniel Zhu, Jules A Winokur, Prachi Dua, Howard D Pomeranz, Thomas Perera, Matthew G Gorski","doi":"10.1177/11206721241292105","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Ophthalmology is frequently consulted to \"rule-out papilledema.\" We assessed the efficacy of a portable, non-mydriatic fundus camera in detecting optic disc edema in the inpatient and emergency room settings during \"rule-out papilledema\" consultations, comparing to the gold standard dilated fundus examination (DFE).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This prospective, blinded, cohort study included 124 non-mydriatic fundus photographs (62 patients) that were obtained over the 11-month enrollment period. The images, along with a brief clinical history, were evaluated independently by an attending neuro-ophthalmologist (NO), general ophthalmologist (GO), emergency room (ER) physician, and ophthalmology resident (OR), for the presence of disc edema and indication for consultation. Results were compared to DFE. Sensitivity, specificity, and area under receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were determined to evaluate the efficacy of the camera.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>On DFE, disc edema was present in 51 eyes (41.1%). Compared to DFE, NO assessment had the greatest combined sensitivity (84.3%) and specificity (97.3%) for the detection of disc edema, followed by that of GO (sensitivity 77.4%, specificity 100%), OR (sensitivity 96.1%, specificity 80.8%), and ER clinician (sensitivity 68.6%, specificity 89.0%). Areas under ROC curves for NO, GO, OR, and ER physician were all statistically significant for the detection of disc edema (0.908, <i>P</i> < 0.001; 0.892, <i>P</i> < 0.001; 0.885, <i>P</i> < 0.001; 0.788, <i>P</i> < 0.001, respectively).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Clinicians were able to correctly identify optic disc edema using non-mydriatic fundus photography. Non-mydriatic fundus photography may be an effective inpatient or telemedicine tool to assess for optic disc edema.</p>","PeriodicalId":12000,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Ophthalmology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Efficacy of a portable non-mydriatic fundus camera for \\\"rule-out papilledema\\\" consultations: A prospective study.\",\"authors\":\"Paras P Shah, Samuel M Gelnick, Daniel Zhu, Jules A Winokur, Prachi Dua, Howard D Pomeranz, Thomas Perera, Matthew G Gorski\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/11206721241292105\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Ophthalmology is frequently consulted to \\\"rule-out papilledema.\\\" We assessed the efficacy of a portable, non-mydriatic fundus camera in detecting optic disc edema in the inpatient and emergency room settings during \\\"rule-out papilledema\\\" consultations, comparing to the gold standard dilated fundus examination (DFE).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This prospective, blinded, cohort study included 124 non-mydriatic fundus photographs (62 patients) that were obtained over the 11-month enrollment period. The images, along with a brief clinical history, were evaluated independently by an attending neuro-ophthalmologist (NO), general ophthalmologist (GO), emergency room (ER) physician, and ophthalmology resident (OR), for the presence of disc edema and indication for consultation. Results were compared to DFE. Sensitivity, specificity, and area under receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were determined to evaluate the efficacy of the camera.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>On DFE, disc edema was present in 51 eyes (41.1%). Compared to DFE, NO assessment had the greatest combined sensitivity (84.3%) and specificity (97.3%) for the detection of disc edema, followed by that of GO (sensitivity 77.4%, specificity 100%), OR (sensitivity 96.1%, specificity 80.8%), and ER clinician (sensitivity 68.6%, specificity 89.0%). Areas under ROC curves for NO, GO, OR, and ER physician were all statistically significant for the detection of disc edema (0.908, <i>P</i> < 0.001; 0.892, <i>P</i> < 0.001; 0.885, <i>P</i> < 0.001; 0.788, <i>P</i> < 0.001, respectively).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Clinicians were able to correctly identify optic disc edema using non-mydriatic fundus photography. Non-mydriatic fundus photography may be an effective inpatient or telemedicine tool to assess for optic disc edema.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12000,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Journal of Ophthalmology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Journal of Ophthalmology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/11206721241292105\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"OPHTHALMOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Ophthalmology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/11206721241292105","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"OPHTHALMOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:眼科经常会接到 "排除乳头水肿 "的咨询。我们评估了便携式非眼球屈光眼底照相机与金标准散瞳眼底检查(DFE)相比,在 "排除视乳头水肿 "会诊时,在住院和急诊环境中检测视盘水肿的效果:这项前瞻性、盲法、队列研究包括在 11 个月的注册期内获得的 124 张非眼底照片(62 名患者)。神经眼科主治医师(NO)、普通眼科医师(GO)、急诊室医师(ER)和眼科住院医师(OR)独立评估这些图像和简短的临床病史,以确定是否存在眼底盘水肿和就诊指征。结果与 DFE 进行了比较。确定了灵敏度、特异性和接收器操作特征曲线下的面积,以评估照相机的功效:结果:在DFE检查中,51只眼睛(41.1%)存在椎间盘水肿。与 DFE 相比,NO 评估检测椎间盘水肿的综合灵敏度(84.3%)和特异性(97.3%)最高,其次是 GO(灵敏度 77.4%,特异性 100%)、OR(灵敏度 96.1%,特异性 80.8%)和 ER 临床医师(灵敏度 68.6%,特异性 89.0%)。在检测视盘水肿方面,NO、GO、OR 和急诊室医生的 ROC 曲线下面积均具有统计学意义(0.908,P P P P 结论:临床医生能够使用非眼球屈光眼底照相法正确识别视盘水肿。非眼球屈光眼底照相可能是评估视盘水肿的有效住院或远程医疗工具。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Efficacy of a portable non-mydriatic fundus camera for "rule-out papilledema" consultations: A prospective study.

Purpose: Ophthalmology is frequently consulted to "rule-out papilledema." We assessed the efficacy of a portable, non-mydriatic fundus camera in detecting optic disc edema in the inpatient and emergency room settings during "rule-out papilledema" consultations, comparing to the gold standard dilated fundus examination (DFE).

Methods: This prospective, blinded, cohort study included 124 non-mydriatic fundus photographs (62 patients) that were obtained over the 11-month enrollment period. The images, along with a brief clinical history, were evaluated independently by an attending neuro-ophthalmologist (NO), general ophthalmologist (GO), emergency room (ER) physician, and ophthalmology resident (OR), for the presence of disc edema and indication for consultation. Results were compared to DFE. Sensitivity, specificity, and area under receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were determined to evaluate the efficacy of the camera.

Results: On DFE, disc edema was present in 51 eyes (41.1%). Compared to DFE, NO assessment had the greatest combined sensitivity (84.3%) and specificity (97.3%) for the detection of disc edema, followed by that of GO (sensitivity 77.4%, specificity 100%), OR (sensitivity 96.1%, specificity 80.8%), and ER clinician (sensitivity 68.6%, specificity 89.0%). Areas under ROC curves for NO, GO, OR, and ER physician were all statistically significant for the detection of disc edema (0.908, P < 0.001; 0.892, P < 0.001; 0.885, P < 0.001; 0.788, P < 0.001, respectively).

Conclusion: Clinicians were able to correctly identify optic disc edema using non-mydriatic fundus photography. Non-mydriatic fundus photography may be an effective inpatient or telemedicine tool to assess for optic disc edema.

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
3.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
372
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The European Journal of Ophthalmology was founded in 1991 and is issued in print bi-monthly. It publishes only peer-reviewed original research reporting clinical observations and laboratory investigations with clinical relevance focusing on new diagnostic and surgical techniques, instrument and therapy updates, results of clinical trials and research findings.
期刊最新文献
Acute infectious endophthalmitis after chandelier-assisted scleral buckling surgery. Bagel sign and how to avoid it in DMEK surgery. Changes in choroidal thickness and lamina cribrosa position in subjects with overdipper pattern of arterial pressure. Characteristics of submacular hemorrhage with bacillary layer detachment and intrabacillary hemorrhage. Comparison of 3-month clinical outcomes between two enhanced monofocal intraocular lenses: A single-center prospective study.
×
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