Nicholas R Binder, Jeffrey M Bloom, Mineh Balushian Haftevani, Stephen Duncan, Nathan Christopher Lowry, Tom S Chang
{"title":"Acuity 360远程医疗视力筛查系统的灵敏度和特异性评价。","authors":"Nicholas R Binder, Jeffrey M Bloom, Mineh Balushian Haftevani, Stephen Duncan, Nathan Christopher Lowry, Tom S Chang","doi":"10.2147/OPTH.S476868","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Our aim is to evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of Acuity 360 telemedicine system, as compared to in-person clinic examination, in identifying clinically significant eye disease. Acuity 360 is a combination of commercially available ocular imaging devices used together to provide a comprehensive evaluation of the structures and diseases of the eye.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Observational cross-sectional study of consecutively examined patients where 19 remote examiners analyzed 80 patients using Acuity 360 images. The examiners' diagnoses were compared to the diagnosis obtained from in-person clinic examination of all the patients. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), false-negative rate, and inter-rater agreement were calculated.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Compared to in-person clinic examination, the sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and false-negative rate for the optical coherence tomography (OCT) of optic nerve were 95.8%, 98.5%, 86.8%, 99.6%, 0.39% and for the combined retina examination (OCT of the macula and widefield fundus photography) were 93.4%, 88.5%, 80.2%, 96.4%, 2.19%, respectively. The median inter-rater agreement the OCT of optic nerve and the combined retina examination were each 95%.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The Acuity 360 telemedicine system has a low false-negative rate and is highly sensitive and specific when compared to an in-person clinic examination. It can determine the necessity for specialist referral and triage the patients that require urgent treatment. High inter-rater agreement shows that it is effective with minimal variability in analyzing the Acuity 360 images by remote examiners.</p>","PeriodicalId":93945,"journal":{"name":"Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)","volume":"18 ","pages":"3853-3859"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11668333/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluation of Sensitivity and Specificity of Acuity 360 Telemedicine Vision Screening System.\",\"authors\":\"Nicholas R Binder, Jeffrey M Bloom, Mineh Balushian Haftevani, Stephen Duncan, Nathan Christopher Lowry, Tom S Chang\",\"doi\":\"10.2147/OPTH.S476868\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Our aim is to evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of Acuity 360 telemedicine system, as compared to in-person clinic examination, in identifying clinically significant eye disease. Acuity 360 is a combination of commercially available ocular imaging devices used together to provide a comprehensive evaluation of the structures and diseases of the eye.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Observational cross-sectional study of consecutively examined patients where 19 remote examiners analyzed 80 patients using Acuity 360 images. The examiners' diagnoses were compared to the diagnosis obtained from in-person clinic examination of all the patients. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), false-negative rate, and inter-rater agreement were calculated.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Compared to in-person clinic examination, the sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and false-negative rate for the optical coherence tomography (OCT) of optic nerve were 95.8%, 98.5%, 86.8%, 99.6%, 0.39% and for the combined retina examination (OCT of the macula and widefield fundus photography) were 93.4%, 88.5%, 80.2%, 96.4%, 2.19%, respectively. The median inter-rater agreement the OCT of optic nerve and the combined retina examination were each 95%.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The Acuity 360 telemedicine system has a low false-negative rate and is highly sensitive and specific when compared to an in-person clinic examination. It can determine the necessity for specialist referral and triage the patients that require urgent treatment. High inter-rater agreement shows that it is effective with minimal variability in analyzing the Acuity 360 images by remote examiners.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":93945,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)\",\"volume\":\"18 \",\"pages\":\"3853-3859\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11668333/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2147/OPTH.S476868\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2147/OPTH.S476868","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Evaluation of Sensitivity and Specificity of Acuity 360 Telemedicine Vision Screening System.
Purpose: Our aim is to evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of Acuity 360 telemedicine system, as compared to in-person clinic examination, in identifying clinically significant eye disease. Acuity 360 is a combination of commercially available ocular imaging devices used together to provide a comprehensive evaluation of the structures and diseases of the eye.
Methods: Observational cross-sectional study of consecutively examined patients where 19 remote examiners analyzed 80 patients using Acuity 360 images. The examiners' diagnoses were compared to the diagnosis obtained from in-person clinic examination of all the patients. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), false-negative rate, and inter-rater agreement were calculated.
Results: Compared to in-person clinic examination, the sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and false-negative rate for the optical coherence tomography (OCT) of optic nerve were 95.8%, 98.5%, 86.8%, 99.6%, 0.39% and for the combined retina examination (OCT of the macula and widefield fundus photography) were 93.4%, 88.5%, 80.2%, 96.4%, 2.19%, respectively. The median inter-rater agreement the OCT of optic nerve and the combined retina examination were each 95%.
Conclusion: The Acuity 360 telemedicine system has a low false-negative rate and is highly sensitive and specific when compared to an in-person clinic examination. It can determine the necessity for specialist referral and triage the patients that require urgent treatment. High inter-rater agreement shows that it is effective with minimal variability in analyzing the Acuity 360 images by remote examiners.