首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>Eye >Fundus autofluorescence imaging: systematic review of test accuracy for the diagnosis and monitoring of retinal conditions
【2h】

Fundus autofluorescence imaging: systematic review of test accuracy for the diagnosis and monitoring of retinal conditions

机译:眼底自发荧光成像:系统评估检查准确性以诊断和监测视网膜状况

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。
获取外文期刊封面目录资料

摘要

We conducted a systematic review of the accuracy of fundus autofluorescence (FAF) imaging for diagnosing and monitoring retinal conditions. Searches in November 2014 identified English language references. Sources included MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and MEDION databases; reference lists of retrieved studies; and internet pages of relevant organisations, meetings, and trial registries. For inclusion, studies had to report FAF imaging accuracy quantitatively. Studies were critically appraised using QUADAS risk of bias criteria. Two reviewers conducted all review steps. From 2240 unique references identified, eight primary research studies met the inclusion criteria. These investigated diagnostic accuracy of FAF imaging for choroidal neovascularisation (one study), reticular pseudodrusen (three studies), cystoid macular oedema (two studies), and diabetic macular oedema (two studies). Diagnostic sensitivity of FAF imaging ranged from 32 to 100% and specificity from 34 to 100%. However, owing to methodological limitations, including high and/or unclear risks of bias, none of these studies provides conclusive evidence of the diagnostic accuracy of FAF imaging. Study heterogeneity precluded meta-analysis. In most studies, the patient spectrum was not reflective of those who would present in clinical practice and no studies adequately reported whether FAF images were interpreted consistently. No studies of monitoring accuracy were identified. An update in October 2016, based on MEDLINE and internet searches, identified four new studies but did not alter our conclusions. Robust quantitative evidence on the accuracy of FAF imaging and how FAF images are interpreted is lacking. We provide recommendations to address this.
机译:我们对眼底自发荧光(FAF)成像的准确性进行了系统的评估,以诊断和监测视网膜状况。 2014年11月的搜索确定了英语参考。资料来源包括MEDLINE,EMBASE,Cochrane图书馆,Web of Science和MEDION数据库。检索到的研究参考清单;有关组织,会议和审判注册处的网页。为纳入研究,研究必须定量报告FAF成像准确性。使用QUADAS偏倚风险标准对研究进行了严格评估。两名审阅者执行了所有审阅步骤。从确定的2240个独特参考文献中,八项主要研究符合纳入标准。这些研究调查了FAF成像对脉络膜新生血管形成的诊断准确性(一项研究),网状假性鼻疽(三项研究),黄斑囊样水肿(两项研究)和糖尿病性黄斑水肿(两项研究)。 FAF成像的诊断敏感性为32%至100%,特异性为34%至100%。然而,由于方法上的局限性,包括偏倚的高风险和/或不清楚的风险,这些研究均未提供FAF成像诊断准确性的确凿证据。研究异质性无法进行荟萃分析。在大多数研究中,患者频谱无法反映临床实践中可能出现的情况,也没有研究充分报道FAF图像是否被一致解释。没有发现监测准确性的研究。根据MEDLINE和互联网搜索,2016年10月的更新确定了四项新研究,但并未改变我们的结论。缺乏关于FAF成像准确性以及如何解释FAF图像的可靠的定量证据。我们提供解决此问题的建议。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号