Format

Send to

Choose Destination
See comment in PubMed Commons below
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2008 Dec;49(12):5373-85. doi: 10.1167/iovs.07-1501. Epub 2008 Jul 9.

Screening tests for detecting open-angle glaucoma: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Author information

1
Health Services Research Unit, Institute of Applied Health Sciences, College of Life Sciences and Medicine, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, Scotland, United Kingdom. g.mowatt@abdn.ac.uk

Abstract

PURPOSE:

To assess the comparative accuracy of potential screening tests for open angle glaucoma (OAG).

METHODS:

Medline, Embase, Biosis (to November 2005), Science Citation Index (to December 2005), and The Cochrane Library (Issue 4, 2005) were searched. Studies assessing candidate screening tests for detecting OAG in persons older than 40 years that reported true and false positives and negatives were included. Meta-analysis was undertaken using the hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic model.

RESULTS:

Forty studies enrolling over 48,000 people reported nine tests. Most tests were reported by only a few studies. Frequency-doubling technology (FDT; C-20-1) was significantly more sensitive than ophthalmoscopy (30, 95% credible interval [CrI] 0-62) and Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT; 45, 95% CrI 17-68), whereas threshold standard automated perimetry (SAP) and Heidelberg Retinal Tomograph (HRT II) were both more sensitive than GAT (41, 95% CrI 14-64 and 39, 95% CrI 3-64, respectively). GAT was more specific than both FDT C-20-5 (19, 95% CrI 0-53) and threshold SAP (14, 95% CrI 1-37). Judging performance by diagnostic odds ratio, FDT, oculokinetic perimetry, and HRT II are promising tests. Ophthalmoscopy, SAP, retinal photography, and GAT had relatively poor performance as single tests. These findings are based on heterogeneous data of limited quality and as such are associated with considerable uncertainty.

CONCLUSIONS:

No test or group of tests was clearly superior for glaucoma screening. Further research is needed to evaluate the comparative accuracy of the most promising tests.

PMID:
18614810
DOI:
10.1167/iovs.07-1501
[Indexed for MEDLINE]
PubMed Commons home

PubMed Commons

0 comments
How to join PubMed Commons

    Supplemental Content

    Full text links

    Icon for Silverchair Information Systems Icon for PubMed Health
    Loading ...
    Support Center